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



## the patriot (29 Oct 2000)

Thought this might start an interesting discussion.  Is it now time to replace the C7 with a different service rifle as our basic small arms for the individual soldier?!  

-the patriot-


----------



## JRMACDONALD (30 Oct 2000)

WHY?  Let‘s master the rifle, before we decide we need a new toy.


----------



## the patriot (30 Oct 2000)

You mean the butt of the rifle doesn‘t splinter on impact when smashed over a helment?!  So much for close quarters fighting...

-the patriot-


----------



## JRMACDONALD (30 Oct 2000)

In the thirteen years that this rifle has been in service, I have not yet seen a rifle butt splintered( modern urban myth, perhaps?) The handguards, I admit, are not so robust. So we replace the rifle , instead of a part?  I admit I do not believe it to be the finest rifle we could have got.  Are we always going to be chasing after the "newest piece of kit"? What, exactly, is wrong with it?
( let us conduct some of our own trials, you wear the helmet of your choice, I‘ll do the swinging!  !)


----------



## Master Blaster (30 Oct 2000)

At the risk of sounding American; what tasking did you have in mind?  Boarding naval vessels at sea...try an MP5A3 9x19mm Sub gun or a modified 11-87 Remington 12 guage shotgun.  For reaching out and touching someone at really long distances try the Barrett .50 for the JTF (scrapped their PSG‘s in .308: couldn‘t deliver and way too heavy for a tactical weapon) or battalion combat snipers.  Want a situational tactical weapon for rear area troops, try the 5.7 x 28mm that fires a 31 grain projectile at 2400 feet per second which will penetrate soft body armour at 200 meters like it‘s not even there and still manage to stop within 10 centimeters inside the target mass (that‘s what FN says it will do but I think they may be smoking something ‘special‘ to change the laws of Physics)

The ‘time on weapon‘ has been reduced to once a year for most troops which isn‘t enough time to reliably zero your weapon let alone become intimate with it‘s in‘s and out‘s.  Remove the scopes (lighten the load) go back to a decent battle sight (a la Marine corps micrometer sight and the training that goes along with it) with a carrying handle at the point of balance and start teaching marksmenship on a quarterly level.  Don‘t have to use the ranges...can use gallery rounds in a gymnasium with the C10 sub cal units.  The situational training video stations are rarely up and operational so let‘s either scrap them or fix them to be more reliable.  Train the operators to be troubleshooters of the equipment and not wait for the next computer whizbang to come along a few days later (I digress). 

Everyone appears to want that special piece of kit that will get them out of any particular jam at the time the shit hits the fan (M203 for example) but not a lot of soldiers want to spend the time on triggers to accomplish the task.  Time was when the best way for a unit to show their prowess as an infantry regiment was to demonstrate it on the ranges with all the weapons at the disposal of a battalion.  Haven‘t seen that for 20 years...but then the last flogging in the CF was 1964.  Time for a change; you tell me!

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## the patriot (31 Oct 2000)

Funnily enough, the American Army has decided to proceed with implementing the OICW as its primary small arms for the individual soldier by 2009.  This information, I just read on Jane‘s Defense Weekly.

-the patriot-


----------



## JRMACDONALD (31 Oct 2000)

OICW- only 9 years away, huh?( newest piece of kit envy, anyone?) I wonder how all that digital circuitry will stand up to a good helmet?


----------



## the patriot (10 Nov 2000)

I see your point. You might end up having to call Microsoft Tech Support because your rifle ends up jamming on you.  It probably wouldn‘t hold up to well...

-the patriot-


----------



## Mud Crawler (13 Nov 2000)

I always tought i knew an awfull lot on weapons so i was shocked when i read  on the OICW.What the fuck is that?


----------



## the patriot (13 Nov 2000)

The OICW is the "Objective Individual Combat Weapon" that the Americans have been working on for a few years now.  It has everything all in one; meaning that you have a grenade launcher, machine gun, bayonet, laser targeting all in one weapons system.
It has a programmable 20 mm shell that would take the place of the M203 grenade launcher.  For a better description you might want to check out the "User Submitted Links" section and there is an  article all about it under the Military Information area.

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (13 Nov 2000)

It‘s listed as America‘s Future Service Rifle.

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (13 Nov 2000)

US Army approves revolutionary infantry weapon

ANDREW KOCH 
JDW Staff Reporter
Washington DC 

The US Army has given approval for the formal acquisition programme of its next generation infantry weapon. The army gave a team headed by Alliant Techsystems (ATK) a $95 million contract for programme definition and risk-reduction (PDRR) of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW), fielding of which is expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09). 

Under a new programme schedule, revised last March, the OICW will not be ready for deployment to the initial units that will receive the service‘s integrated Land Warrior individual combat system. Army officials expect to begin fielding the Land Warrior no later than FY07. 

The OICW is intended to be the primary weapon for close combat infantry units, replacing some M16 series 5.56mm assault rifles, M4 5.56mm carbines and M203 40mm grenade launchers. Under existing plans, the army will equip four members of a nine-strong infantry squad with the OICW. 

As part of the risk-reduction efforts, ATK will build five full prototypes before the programme enters engineering and manufacturing development in FY04. According to Barbara Moldowney, the army‘s assistant product manager for OICW, the weapon will be redesigned and additional capabilities added during PDRR. These include a laser rangefinder, digital camera, combat identification system, integrated thermal fire control and laser illuminator. Pre-planned production improvements (P3I), including the use of multifunctional lasers are also being considered for the weapon, Moldowney added. 

ATK business development manager Tom Bierman said improved battery technology is another area for possible P3I upgrades. Live fire tests of the redesigned weapon are due to be conducted at Aberdeen Proving Grounds at the end of FY03. 

The OICW will be capable of firing both standard 5.56mm kinetic-energy ammunition as well as a new 20mm high-explosive airbursting round that the army is describing as a revolutionary advancement because it can attack concealed targets with greater precision at 1,000m. The electronic fire-control system, built by Brashear, will have a laser rangefinder that can transmit data directly to the fuse in the 20mm airbursting round. 

The programme has suffered setbacks and criticisms that the weapon is not rugged enough, is too heavy and overly expensive. The largest setback came in September 1999 when a 20mm round detonated in the OICW‘s barrel, injuring two personnel (Jane‘s Defence Weekly 3 Nov 1999). That problem has now been fixed and live-fire tests will be held in October 2001 to prove those solutions, programme officials added. 

The officials said that reducing the weapon‘s weight remains the largest technical hurdle to overcome. The weapon‘s weight currently stands at 8.17kg, but is expected to be reduced to 6.81kg by the end of PDRR and to a maximum of 6.36kg before entering production. All of these weights include eight rounds of ammunition in the magazine, ATK said. 

The army is expected to buy 20,000-40,000 weapons for an estimated $8,000 to $10,000 per unit. That, critics say, is expensive compared to the M16‘s cost of $586. However, Beirman argues, the OICW offers five times the effectiveness of an M16 mounted with an M203 grenade launcher and requires fewer munitions to be fired while providing greater survivability and reduced life-cycle costs. 


The OICW will be capable of firing both standard 5.56mm kinetic-energy ammunition as well as a new 20mm high-explosive airbursting round
(Source: Alliant Techsystems)  
**************************************************

-the patriot-


----------



## Mud Crawler (13 Nov 2000)

ok thanks for the link and article.

1.Why do you want to change the c7?
2.If we were ever to change, what would you want it to be for?
I heard the H&K g36 k is THE soldiers weapon.It has an integrated 3.5 x sight just like the c7, but also has a normal o-ring/pin sight similar to the m-16‘s.Plus H&K is recodnized across the world for its ruggedness and reliability and it would fix all the complaints I‘ve heard on this forum about the c7.If we were ever to change, i wish it would be the g36 k.


----------



## Mud Crawler (13 Nov 2000)

P.S.:If one weapon was to be changed i think it should be the pistol.The browning is overdue for change.New technologies reduce recoil and would ease the use of the pistol for those of us who can‘t seem to be able to handle weapons right.But then, we could argue the pistol is not the weapon you use the most often on the battlefield.


----------



## Master Blaster (21 Nov 2000)

MudCrawler;  The HK G36K has a 12.5" barrel and is of limited use as a main battle rifle.  The operational round suggested as the primary effective cartridge is the 62 grain, moly-coated tactical load that must generate at least 2600feet per second at the muzzle to penetrate to a depth capable of incapacitation on a human being.  The significant barrel length is the factor and would suggest that you look at the G36E format with an 18" barrel instead.  A little more weight but acceptable to anyone that has humped (if I may use the word {it hardly weighs anything compared to an FN}) a C7/M16.  I disagree about the sight.  While it does have the same magnification (3.5) it has a much smaller field of view than the Elcan sight and for close assault purposes it can impair vision to the front (where the Bad Guys are).  There is a non-magnifying sealed tube sight available for this weapon that is part of the carrying handle but again it limits the periferal vision and can cause the operator to ‘tunnel‘ his view objectives.  I hate to be the regressive, low techer here but I believe that we should return to a heavier projectile, tritium iron sighted, high mag capacity weapon and retrain soldiers to lead targets, stalk and assault with aimed fire.  Quit relying on the volume of fire to make up for the shortcomings of accurate fire.


----------



## Mud Crawler (22 Nov 2000)

Master Blaster, thx for the info on g-36 k.I think we should specialize some units in CQB, entering buildings and stuff, but still give a general training to every soldier, and arm those with h&k 53, the 5.56mm version of the Oh-So-Popular mp5.and yes, i agree with you, good old tritium sights still do the job and, besides, when you wannna scared baddies, an impressive amount of fire is always preferable to a few sighted shots.Its psychological i guess, but i bet your way better placed than me to discuss this subject since I‘m not even in the army yet.Its been 2 months and tehy still didnt call me back to give em a date for interviews :*(.Is it true that they wanna put a m203 on every C7?and what do you think of the browning hi-power we have in service?


----------



## Mud Crawler (22 Nov 2000)

Oh and i forgot, arent you guys allowed to do some free time firing?on the base‘s firing range?


----------



## GPMG (22 Nov 2000)

No, the M203 will be carried by two people in each section of eight. Thus the section small arms will now be comprised of two C9s, two C7/M203s, and four C7s.

The G36‘s secondary sight is actually a red dot relex sight, which is designed to be used for close quarter battle. 

MP53... I‘ve had no personal experience with this weapon. It was only produced in limited numbers as I recall, and according to US SPECOPS personnel who have tested it, the weapon was prone to stoppages resulting from receiver dents. I suppose that‘s what you get when a weapon is stamped from sheet metal.

I am quite suprised that the Elcan is actually considered to be one of the top combat optics out there. I‘m a fan of iron sights myself though. I think one possibility the CF can look into is the system that the Danish army has. Their troops recently got issued with Elcan equipped C7s, and with each rifle, there also comes a rubber rear sight which can be mounted on the rail should the Elcan fail, or they are moving into FIBUA conditions. The backup rear sight resembles the previous looped upper rear sight on the C7, except that there is no looped carry handle; only the rear sight. 

A picture of the sight can be seen here: http://www.tactical.dk/images/c7a102.jpg
Ignore the relex sight mounted in front of the rubber sight. That is not issued kit.


----------



## Mud Crawler (23 Nov 2000)

yeah the best option would be to have the elcan scope mounted on a rail system and each C7 would come with a carryhandle with tritium sights that could replace the elcan wich would be able to be taken off the C7.Before i learned the scope was fix, i always tought this was teh case because, well, its the most logical thing.So when you come to CQB, you switch from scope to carry handle.
At first with mp5, you could only put 29 ammo in mag cuz the pin was blocking the 30th bullet.They fixed it.Now the mp5 is one of the most reliable weapon on earth and is used by armies and police forces around the world.I cant think of a reason why they wouldnt have fixed the 53‘s problem as well.Tho i must say i heard that the US navy‘s version with the 3 round burst trigger module isnt that reliable(on mp5 n).I know the Montréal police swat team uses the 53 so they musnt be that bad.


----------



## GPMG (23 Nov 2000)

The Elcan isn‘t fixed on the rifle. It IS in fact mounted on the rifle by a rail so that a soldier can move it back and forth to adjust for proper eye relief. To remove the sight, all you need is to turn the two wing nuts to loosen the sight and take it off. As a matter of fact, that‘s where most of the Elcan‘s problems come from... it coming loose and losing zero.

For FIBUA though, the Elcan probably isn‘t so much of a problem because the engagement distance is often so short, and things happen so fast that you simply bring the rifle up and fire, using only the top of the sight as alignment towards the target. 

As to the MP5, there is still a mythical quality, but it is quickly being phased out by many military and law enforcement units world wide in favour of the superior ballistic characteristics of the M4 carbine.


----------



## Master Blaster (27 Nov 2000)

GPig;
The receiver dents that you refer to are the result of using the A3 collapsible stock that has been in the system for some time.  It‘s an armourers job to take out the dents with a formed mandrel supplied by the manufacturer.  As the weapon wears, the stock has a tendency to cause the rear area of the receiver to become misshapen and cause some failuers to feed and extract.  It is an easy fix to a problem known for some time.  This is part and parcel of the regularly scheduled maintenance of the KH SMG/rifle system.

The mythical quality you refer to is far from mythical...you point the weapon at what you wish to destroy; it‘s dead.  Simple, straightfoward and deadly.  Easy to train both inexperienced and skilled shooters in load/clear/IA‘s, a controllable rate of fire and a flash signature that is nothing compared to the way an M4 lights up the country side.

I don‘t really want to get in a pissing match as to the ‘best‘ weapon because there isn‘t one.  What ever works best in the deadly confrontational environment where you happen to encounter live targets is the best at the time.

A skilled soldier/LEO with the weapon he is most secure with will devastate any other individual with any other weapons system.  A prime example is the sniper.  Another example is Assault teams from Law Eenforcement HERT groups or Covert Ops teams.  Intimate knowledge of the capabilities of the weaponry they apply at the target designated by the operational requirement.

If you truly want to be impressed by the destructive capacity of a sub 20mm automatic weapon, check out the GPMG teams from the northern Scottish islands called the Orkneys...the best that the Brits have ever produced reside in the Regiment known as "The Highlanders" (formerly the Seaforth, Glengarry and Camerons).  To watch them lay, engage and destroy targets well beyond the specifications established originally by FN with the MAG58 is a joy to behold.  It makes this old soldier a little moist in the corner of at least one eye.

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (27 May 2001)

As promised I am posting Diemaco‘s answers to my questions.  My e-mail to them is at the bottom, and confirms the post that said our rifle is better.  

Hi Steve
I apologize for not answering sooner.  I‘m afraid I have been avoiding the
alligators chewing on my ankles to take care of the ones feeding higher up.
To answer your questions as presented:
The effective range published does not have much to do with the barrel but
is an infantry doctrine distance to do with the whole system including the
man, sights, weapon ammunition and expected employment.  So when you see
effective range, it is almost always a subjective assessment of the system
capability derived by the user instructor (CTC) and rifle requirements
office (DLR), usually before the weapon is even bought.  In the case of the
C7 it included iron sights and was extended (I think) when the C79 sight and
the C7A1 came along.  The reference to the rifles origins (M16A1E1) is in
reference to the sight option first chosen by the CF.  The heavy front
profile, 1 turn in 7inch barrel is definitely M16A2.  As is the cartridge
deflector, handguards and many other changes.

Now lets talk barrels:
The C7 barrel is not the same as any M16 barrel except for the exterior
profile which is M16A2.  The Material is to a formula developed here in
Diemaco (under Gov‘t contract) so that the entire bore and chamber
configuration can be integrally formed in one operation on a rotary hammer
forge.  This process produces a barrel that is much stronger than the US
M16A2 barrel.  The bore dimensions were developed to fire C77 ammunition,
(Chamber, bullet lead, diameters) the bore has dimensional reduction as the
bullet moves forward (squeeze) to increase life and accuracy.  The bore is
plated with harder chrome than the M16.  This allows greater wear life (2 to
3 times M16) and lets us machine C9 barrels from the same barrel blank.  The
SFW was recently tested and purchased by the UK special forces and won in
competition against the Swiss SIG series rifles and the H&K G36 rifle.  This
barrel is now in use by the Special Forces in five countries and the US Navy
Seals have expressed interest in putting them in the M4 Carbines that they
have.
We have just completed a C8 Carbine upgrade program for Canada which is a
new barrel with an improved chamber and stronger extractor spring assembly
and a weaker ejector spring.  These are the same internal configuration as
our very successful SFW barrel.

Differences:
The C7 rifle and C8 Carbine is made under license with a Tech Data Package
provided by Colt to the Canadian Gov‘t.  Diemaco reviewed the design and
made about 150 changes to the drawing package before Canadian production.
These are to numerous to mention her but include things like materials and
processes as well as a different barrel configuration and manufacturing
processes.

The improved handguard we designed here after CWO John Ginn kept beating the
Colt version off the weapon on the parade square.  You probably can‘t tell
from the outside but if the you take the handguard off, you will notice two
types.  The improved version has two large ribs under the heat shield and
three interlocking ribs on either edge as well as different material.  These
were introduced late in the program so they had to be interchangable and be
a good match with the old handguard.

Another change you may notice is the small diameter front sight post that we
developed when soldiers complained that the US large square one actually
obscured the target at ranges of 300 and greater.

I hope this helps you with the discussion and thank you for your interest in
the C7.

Ian Anderson
ILS Supervisor
Product Engineering Dept.
Diemaco a division of Heroux- Devtek

Please note: Any opinions expressed or implied in this email are personal
are not necessarily  those of Heroux Devtek or Diemaco


> Subject:	C7 barrel
>
> Dear Diemaco,
>
>      There is an ongoing debate between myself and a few buddies regarding
>
> the C7‘s barrel.  On one side, there are those who believe that Canada‘s
> C7
> inherited the M16A1‘s barrel, as evidenced by the 400M effective range
> advertised on this and the Army DND websites.  On the other side, there
> are
> others who believe that the C7 has the "heavy" barrel found on the current
>
> US rifles, the M16A2‘s and A3‘s (despite the Diemaco website saying that
> the
> C7 is an offspring of the M16A1E1), though the effective range of the
> M16A2
> is advertised at 550-600M (not 400M).
>
>      Please provide the information on the C7 barrel for only information
> on
> the manufacturer‘s authority can settle our argument!  Also highlight any
> distinctively Canadian features on the C7 as compared to its American
> counterpart.
>
> Thank you


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2001)

Good work fortunecookie. That should finally put the matter to rest. As an aside, I just returned from the LFCA/ORA Small Arms Competition in Borden this weekend. I can attest a large number of shooters posted impressive scores at 500 meters with the issue rifle and scope including some perfect scores. And the targets were fig 12 & 11‘s!


----------



## JRMACDONALD (27 May 2001)

FOrtunecookie5084- I am not worthy. You have produced more tech data than I ve seen since this rifle got issued. GOOD ON YOU!


----------



## ender (28 May 2001)

recceeguy,
I was at the ORA shoot too.  I had a lot of fun and learned a lot.  Didn‘t do too well, since I have basicly 0 experience shooting (just QL2 rifle range) and I had to zero my rifle there, but I think I‘l do a lot better next time.  And I can attest it is perfectly possible for a fairly new shooter to hit the target at 500.
You probably saw me there. (I mean, there wern‘t too many females shooting)

It‘s too bad more units don‘t put in shooting teams.  It‘s a great way to actually learn how to shoot and to talk to other shooters.  And supposudly the pistol competition is a lot of fun.  I find it hard to believe that there are infantry units that don‘t send teams there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2001)

ender,
I think I did see you, at breakfast. Your dad, a MCpl was introducing you to another table. Short, dark hair, just above the shoulder, about 5‘ 7" and the trooper stripe on your right sleeve is a little cockeyed?
It‘s good to see new shooters not afraid to shoot competition and gain experience, you will only get better. You probably learned more about shooting that weekend than in your whole time in so far. Good for you, keep it up and glad you had a great time. Don‘t back off and wait for the next one, keep practicing and with your Dad being the musketry NCO, he should be able to push for a full time team with more practice and bullets. Keep it up and we‘ll see you next year!


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (19 Oct 2001)

I found this pic and I‘m wondering what type of rifle (sniper, assualt) and what parts of the CF use it. Also when did it come out.

 http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfile/1100/1135.htm


----------



## enfield (19 Oct 2001)

Your link is bad, but I took the time to find it on the Security Arms website. The C7 5.56 precision shooting rifle with flash hider and flash supressor?

To my knowledge the CF does not use this rifle. Just because Diemaco makes it doesn‘t mean the CF uses it - check out diecmaco.com, there‘s a ton of weird wepaons on there.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (20 Oct 2001)

Hmmm... link worked for me.
O, well, thanks for looking it up anyways.

Not to start an argument or anything, but it does say "Canadian Precision Rifle," as if it is refering to it being used by Canada, just as it does with the rest of them.


----------



## Roko (20 Oct 2001)

hmm... It‘s an offshoot of the C7 rifle..
Does anyone other than the CF use the plain C7?

I personally like the c8 Carbine the best.. now that‘s a fine weapon.


----------



## enfield (20 Oct 2001)

check out www.diemaco.com
Currently the Dutch military is equipped with the C7, except only their SF gets the elcan sight. I believe they also use the C8, and the C9 (except diemaco doesn‘t make them). 
Brit special forces use the C8 Special Forces Weapon. 
Anyways, read the diemaco website... they export quite a lot. And the precision rifle is not used by anybody, it‘s simply made here. It‘s defintley not the CF sniper weapon, and it‘s not in a infantry platoon.


----------



## Garett (22 Oct 2001)

The C7CT (or something very similar) is being phased into the army as a personal weapon for the spotter in the sniper/spotter team.  I got to play with it a couple of weeks ago when the two Sgt.s working for the Infantry side of Clothe The Soldier came into our armouries to show us all the new kit along with some new weapons including the c7m203, c8, a cut down c8 (yeah even smaller) with a red dot sight, C7CT (or whatever the hell it was) and the McMillan .50cal sniper rifle.  I guess the new 5.56 sniper rifle may also be phased into all Inf platoons.  Each platoon would include 1 sharpshooter armed with the C7CT.  The reason I‘m not sure if it was the C7CT is because the C7CT is semi-auto only and the rifle I saw had full-auto on the selector. It had just a regular barrel too, not with all that crap on it.  It had a big ***  optical sight also.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (22 Oct 2001)

I was goin to say, slap a scope on that thing it it would probably make a good sniper rifle


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Oct 2001)

5.56 mm  sniper rifle?!  Even on an accurate weapon that bullet is not accurate beyond 600m.  It is too easily affected by wind and other atmospheric conditions.  

  Yard Ape


----------



## Doug VT (23 Oct 2001)

That‘s right, a 5.56 sniper rifle is nothing more than the standard C7, which would be just as effective in the right hands.  The only real improvement would be a heavy barrel.


----------



## Garett (23 Oct 2001)

Yeah the 5.56 round would lack any real power.  But you gotta remember its the weapon for the spotter not the sniper.  Its not supposed to replace the C3, another weapon is replacing that.


----------



## towhey (23 Oct 2001)

In asymmetrical operations, it may be very useful to have designated "marksmen" in each platoon equipped with a more accurate rifle than the standard rifleman.

The Israeli Defence Force does this, fielding a coupfle of marksmen with mini-sniper rifles in each rifle platoon.  These soldiers don‘t use a sniper rifle proper -- merely a more accurate assault rifle with a bonafide sight.  

The concerns re: accuracy of 5.56 mm ammunition at long range are valid.  However, as the IDF employs them, I don‘t believe these marksmen are used in a sniper role -- they‘re just very good shots, used to engage individual targets at traditional infantry ranges, especially in built-up areas, and especially under restrictive rules of engagement (i.e. peacekeeping, aid to the civil power, etc.)  Much akin to police "snipers" who engage targets out to 300 m with 5.56 or 7.62 mm weapons.

It would be nice to give these guys a 7.62 mm weapon, but that would create logistical challenges with mixed ammo types among rifle sections.

Might this be a direction our infantry are heading with specialized C7-based weapons?


----------



## Jungle (23 Oct 2001)

There are pros and cons about the "sniper" 5.56mm rifle. I believe the first operational use of "sniper" C7‘s was in East-Timor. Some standard C7‘s (the ones the rifle team had used, and prefered) had been upgraded with very decent optics, a removable bipod etc... It was operated by the no 2 in the sniper det, and was used as back-up rifle and for close protection of the det. All sniper qualified pers in recce platoon tried and appreciated the rifle.


----------



## Garett (23 Oct 2001)

I think the rifle could find a place in the Infantry Platoon even if its only used on operational deployments.  I‘m sure that there have been many times across the water that it could have been put into use.  Plus I‘d love to get some trigger time on one.  I think they shot it a bit at the sniper concentration in Gagetown a while ago.  A Cpl. in my platoon was working at it and he got to fire some weapons.  Well he claims he did anyway.


----------



## King (28 Oct 2001)

Sorry to cut and paste the whole article on here, but it‘s really short and The National Post doesn‘t like people linking to their site. Either that or I need to raise the bar on my computer literacy skills cause I can‘t seem to make it work...

*Canadian assault rifle key part of SAS arsenal*

C7 is standard issue for Canadian troops, a hit with the British

Michael Higgins
National Post, with files from The Daily Telegraph

The Special Air Service, Britain‘s elite troops, will go into Afghanistan armed with a formidable weapon designed in Canada.

The C7 assault rifle will be the weapon of choice for many of the SAS soldiers because of its accuracy and durability.

The C7, the standard rifle for Canadian troops, has proved a big hit with the elite soldiers; it outperformed Britain‘s own SA80 and the American M16 during tests by the SAS.

The SAS began testing the weapon two years ago and, impressed by its reliability and heavy firepower, bought enough to equip the entire regiment.

The weapon is manufactured by Diemaco, Kitchener, Ont., and costs upwards of $2,000 a gun.

Optional equipment includes a 40mm grenade launcher, attached under the main barrel. SAS troopers will carry about 20 of the anti-personnel and anti-tank grenades.

There is also a laser pointer and a night image intensification sight, also known as a Kite sight. A silencer can be fitted on the end of the barrel giving the gun sniper capacity.

The magazine holds 30 rounds and the rate of fire is 700 to 940 rounds per minute. According to its specifications, it has a range of 400 metres.

A special forces source said: "This weapon is worth its weight in gold. You just don‘t want something that is ‘spray and pray‘ and you want a weapon you can absolutely rely on when you pull the trigger."

The C7 is ideal as a weapon for the close-quarter battle that the SAS is likely to experience in the caves, ravines and built-up areas of Afghanistan.

A spokesman for Diemaco said: "The thing about the C7 over the M16 is its durability. The barrel life is much longer and its general longevity better. Small but significant changes, very minor changes, make it function better in poor conditions -- mud and poor climatic conditions."

The C7 was designed in the mid-1980s and was based on America‘s M16. It has since been sold to the U.K., the Netherlands and Denmark.


----------



## enfield (28 Oct 2001)

a) Diemaco says the Brits bought C8‘s, not C7‘s...
b) how is a C7 ideal for close quarters? SA80 (not that the guy that wrote the article could tell either apart) is shorter...
c) how the hell do you fit a silencer onto a C7/C8??
...and why would you want a silenced 5.56 sniper rifle?

The same column the day before was all about new noiseless overboats that special forces would wear over their boots to prevent noise. 

In other news, Newsweeks in depth, fully researched special on special forces reports that Rangers carry bazookas and M60‘s...(they use Americanized GMPG‘s now)


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (29 Oct 2001)

As i‘ve said before...

...the good ol‘ media


----------



## Yard Ape (30 Oct 2001)

Were Bazookas used beyond WWII?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Oct 2001)

> Originally posted by Yard Ape:
> [qb]Were Bazookas used beyond WWII?[/qb]



Yes, in Korea and beyond - by Canadians as well as Americans.


----------



## Jungle (30 Oct 2001)

Enfield, here are answers to your questions:
a) Diemaco says the Brits bought C8‘s, not C7‘s... (the Brits probably bought the CDN version of the M4 carbine, not the CDN issue C8)
b) how is a C7 ideal for close quarters? SA80 (not that the guy that wrote the article could tell either apart) is shorter... (actually, just about anything is better than the SA-80... in any situation, you don‘t only want a short weapon, you want a reliable one.)
c) how the hell do you fit a silencer onto a C7/C8??
...and why would you want a silenced 5.56 sniper rifle? (the flash suppressor is screwed in place... and how about using a silenced 5.56mm sniper rifle for close quarter -ie: built-up area- sniping or assassinations ?)
If there is one area where we are well equipped, it is definitely the small arms.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (30 Oct 2001)

About the "Bazooka" thing...I know the Rangers are some of the only American soldiers to have the Carl Gustav organic to their platoons (so that is what he probably is talking about).  I know when I‘m practicing helicopter drills the Air Force guys always call the Carl G. "the bazooka."  I guess we can‘t blame the lay people for I don‘t think I know the intricacies of, say, aircraft.


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay (31 Oct 2001)

The following I incorrectly posted on 28 Oct 2001 as a seperate message under Canadian Rifles.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The weapon bought is not a C8, but, a variant which approximates with the US M4A1. Previously a number of standard C7 had been purchased.

Sound suppressed (not silencers) weapons have been a standard with special operations forces since the 2nd World War, these using such as the suppressed variants of the Sten gun in 9mm, the Browning Woodmaster .22 pistol.

22SAS used the Sterling suppressed SMG the L34A1 for many years until it was replaced by the suppressed variants of the HK MP5 SMG in varous calibres. The L34 was used by the US CIA in SVN, along with the Australian/NZ SAS and regular infantry battalions, USN SEALS, and other organisations. Sold in this form to many countries throughout the world.

Sound suppressors have been standard with the Armalite series of weapons ever since Eugene Stoner designed the AR-10. According to Jane‘s Infantry Weapons there are currently three different supressors for the US military M16A2 and M4A1. Others can be used if the appropriate adaptor is used.

Sound suppressed weapons have a major role to play in unconventional warfare, not just for the Hollywood favorite of killing sentries, but, far more important for fighting in a confinded spaces, ie. Afghan caves, hijacked airliners, hostage situation inside a buildings room. It stops the user from becoming deafened, and alleviates the need for total ear protection that would restrict the assaulters senses in such a situation.

In regard to military snipers, the use of a suppressor in a concealed hide in close proximety to the enemy enhances the survivability of the soldier. Also, especially at night it increases the terror factor on the enemy. A well know story from one of the US Army marksmen in SVN concerns a North Vietnamese patrol walking along a paddi bund in pitch black conditions, with the marksman progessively killing the NVA from the rear.

Accuracy International in its range of marksman weapons, now produce in 7.62mm and 5.556mm weapons with a completely suppressed barrel as part of the weapon.

Sound suppressor have only a limited life, and required frequent refurbishment.

Yours,
Jock in Sydney


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (31 Oct 2001)

Has anybody seen this yet...

 http://www.military.com/Resources/EQG/EQGmain?file=OICW&cat=w&lev=2 

...What a gun


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (31 Oct 2001)

According to this site...

 http://www.combat-online.com/ 

...I think they might be refering Diemaco‘s Special Forces Weapon (SFW) which is a member of the    C7 family.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (31 Oct 2001)

Another Rifle that could be used as a sniper is the C8CT, which can also be found on the Diemaco site. This weapon is almost the same C7CT however is slighly different.


----------



## bender (6 Nov 2001)

I just came back from a tranining ex with the brits and used there SA80 and LSW (LMG) and they are incredibly unreliable. You shoot 10 rounds out of the rifle and your almost guaranteed you‘ll have a stoppage. Ofcourse our C7‘s are more reliable but definatly not better for CQB. The SA80 is almost half the size of the C7.


----------



## TOW2B (16 Nov 2001)

Give me  a reliable weapon rather than a "cool looking" one every time.In CQB a short weapon is nice but not required and as stated earlier the SA-80 is JUNK how that piece of crap ever was selected I will never know.Now that H&K is part of the Royal Ordinance family they should get rid of that piece of crap and give the Brits G-36s.
  The C-7 is fine for CQB it just take more training to use in confined spaces,things like instinctively switching from right to left shoulder and vice versa,etc... Not an issue with troops like the SAS.


----------



## Meditations in Green (16 Nov 2001)

One of the things that needs to be remembered about the selection of any arms system are the politics involved. The British have been working on developing bullpup rifles since the fifties - therefore the SA80 was likely someone‘s pet project. The French military also ended up adopting the FAMAS largely due to political reasons. They wanted a French designed and manufactured weapon instead of a foreign one.

In 1995, I had the opportunity to use the Cadet version of the SA80 as well as a training simulator for the SA80. The rifle leaves a lot to be desired as far as I am concerned.  The short length of the rifle does make it very handy, especially for those of smaller and average build. Those on the taller end of things may find it awkward. The short length also reduces the sight radius with iron sights, making it less accurate (Only front line combat units get the SUSAT sights - on the upside I‘ve heard the rifle is quite accurate up to 300m with this sight). The overall length and lack of sturdiness of the SA80 make it less than ideal for CQB with a bayonet as well. Some of the British military folks I met also had some less than stellar opinions of the SA80‘s reliability in adverse conditions(ie: Persian Gulf).  I‘ve heard some similar things about the Steyr AUG weapons family as well.


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Nov 2001)

(still trying to save up for a Colt M4 from my gun club)

Having never fired any military arms, it would seem to me that the C8 would be the best choice for combat at close quarters.

The SA80, it has been said here and for years, is unreliable, even in the "new improved" version.  The old FN‘s were far too heavy and long. The M16 is not quite as tuned as the C7.  If the C8 is merely a collapsable-stock version of the C7, bringing with it the same firepower and reliability, then it would be the logical choice.

The adaptability of the C7/C8 platform (grenade launchers, sound suppressors, or bayonet, if I am not mistaken) seems to be superior to most, if not all, other NATO personal weapons.

Keep in mind, however, I have no personal experience to base my suppositions on.


----------



## Pikache (27 Nov 2001)

A guy who formerly served in the British Army gives C7/8 thumbs up over most other NATO weapons.

At least we got something right, eh?


----------



## Meditations in Green (28 Nov 2001)

Something to keep in mind is that the basic design is around 40 years old. To me, that says quite a bit about the M16‘s design and subsequent modifications.


----------



## Pikache (20 Jan 2003)

I‘ve never been told the full story and just curious to find out.


----------



## SNoseworthy (20 Jan 2003)

Here‘s an old article I had on it published in the UK Telegraph:


SAS carries ‘ultimate‘ weapon 
By Thomas Harding
(Filed: 27/10/2001) 


WHEN the SAS begins operations in earnest in Afghanistan, troopers will be armed with one of the most formidable weapons systems in the world.

In the past year, 22 Special Air Service Regiment has dropped its American-made M16 rifles in favour of the C7 weapon, which is manufactured in Canada. 

The elite force began testing the weapon two years ago and, impressed by its reliability and heavy firepower, bought enough to equip the entire regiment. They did not come cheap. 

A complete weapons system, including sights, laser targeting, grenade launcher and maintenance, costs Â£5,500 each - more than double the cost of the American equivalent.

The relatively lightweight weapon is based on the M16 design but with several modifications. It can be adapted to be used as a machinegun or sniper weapon.

A special forces source said: "This weapon is worth its weight in gold. You just don‘t want something that is ‘spray and pray‘ and you want a weapon you can absolutely rely on when you pull the trigger."


And from an old post at another board (long since gone - I saved this one from a Reservist:


"C7 I trust my life on it as I am a reservist in the Canadian army. Those opticle sights(not scopes) are on all our rifles which is better than just open sights. They are designed for 200m-800m the dnd page says upto 600m which is false and its in 100m incriments. It can fire fully automatic or semi. Its weight is 3.3kg unloaded and 3.8 loaded the page wrong again. Can be fitted with a bayonet for close quarter fighting. If kept in good condition and cleaned properly will never ever misfire. It has a 30 round magazine. The sight has iridium in it yes radioactive hense why there is a radioactive sign on it. This enables it to iluminate a nighting allowing you to see throught the sight at night. Sight can be submerged under water for 10 hours before the seals on it start to break down due to water pressure."


----------
The main differences I can recall are the weight, the fact that the C7 uses plastic cartridges, and that the C7 gets rids of the M16 carry handle for a sight.


----------



## PTE Gruending (20 Jan 2003)

Errr, I‘m new to the Army, but I‘ve never seen a C7 with a plastic mag, only metal. Apparently much more robust and reliable...


----------



## JGreen (21 Jan 2003)

Also The C7 can fire either fully automatic or semi, where as our M16A2 fires either a 3-round burst or semi.


----------



## combat_medic (21 Jan 2003)

M16 vs C7:

Iron Sight Carry Handle vs. Flat Top

C7 can fire fully auto, M16A2 can fire single shots or 3 round bursts
C7 has a heavier barrell, and they ALSO make a heavy barrell version with bipod, meant for some LSW role.

The bolt carrier is slightly different as well, having a smaller metal ring at the base. 

Also, there‘s apparently some alterations made in weighting, accuracy and range, but I couldn‘t be specific as to which. If you want to know EVERYTHING, you might want to send an e-mail to Diemaco: the manufacturer of the C7.


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (21 Jan 2003)

Quoting a Quote



> "C7 I trust my life on it as I am a reservist in the Canadian army. Those opticle sights(not scopes) are on all our rifles which is better than just open sights. They are designed for 200m-800m the dnd page says upto 600m which is false and its in 100m incriments. It can fire fully automatic or semi. Its weight is 3.3kg unloaded and 3.8 loaded the page wrong again. Can be fitted with a bayonet for close quarter fighting. If kept in good condition and cleaned properly will never ever misfire. It has a 30 round magazine. The sight has iridium in it yes radioactive hense why there is a radioactive sign on it. This enables it to iluminate a nighting allowing you to see throught the sight at night. Sight can be submerged under water for 10 hours before the seals on it start to break down due to water pressure."


I hope this reservist was at least on a tour overseas when he made this quote about relying on the C7 for his life. 

The C7 never jams, whatever I have seen freshly cleaned weapons jam on occasion. That‘s a pretty broad brush he‘s painting with there. 

The whole submersion claim is kind of funny as well, why in the name of  "he double hockey sticks" would you have your weapon submerged for that amount of time.


----------



## combat_medic (21 Jan 2003)

Oh yeah, if he thinks the C7 never jams, then he should be given the rusted bucket of $hit rifle I had on basic. The thing had double feeds every 5 rounds and jammed plenty. 

For the most part, yes, it‘s a pretty good weapon, but is by no means perfect.


----------



## rolandstrong (21 Jan 2003)

I don‘t think any weapon is perfect, but comparatively speaking (to other military rifles), the C-7 is an excellent weapon. Its variations have been applied and adapted to a number of other m-16 variants, including that of the Isreali Defense Force.


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (21 Jan 2003)

I agree for the most part that the C7 is a good weapon but I also ran into double feeds while on the range. The RSO suggested smacking the mag into my hand (backside of the mag) to seat the rounds to avoid double feeds. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## combat_medic (21 Jan 2003)

It could be the rounds aren‘t seated properly in the mag... for me it was because my weapon was too dry. I was told to wipe off all the CLP before we went to the range and I did (stupid me). So, the cartridges weren‘t ejecting properly and ended up getting caught because there was no oil in the weapon. A little oil seemed to fix it pretty well.


----------



## max flinch (21 Jan 2003)

I think most of the differences have been well covered in the previous posts, but here goes a summary (apologies for any redundant statements). Regarding my expertise, I was a RESO trained Lt who went through Phase training in Gagetown‘s CTC the first year that they had C7‘s instead of the FNC1A1 (Ironically, our section LMG‘s were still the FNC2 - a heavy barrel version of the the FN with a 30 round magazine. But, I digress...)
1. Heavier barrel to aid in dissapating heat, and thus retaining better accuracy.
2. The furniture (butt and forestock) are made of either different compounds (butt) or heavier plastic (forestock) to deal with winter temperatures and avoid cracking or breaking as a result of the cold.
3. The original C7 (iron sights and carrying handle) did not have a windage adjustment knob on the rear sight like the M16A2 does.
4. The C7 has a removable trigger guard to allow trigger access while wearing bulky winter mitts (I‘m don‘t think the M16A2 has this feature - forgive me if I‘m mistaken).
5. Regarding plastic magazines: These were (sadly) an original feature of the C7. The idea was that in time of war, they would come pre-loaded. The reality was that they were sadly lacking in most respects. The lips of the magazine, exposed to the heat of the weapon near the breach, would frequently break. As you removed a partially filled magazine from the weapon, bullets would fountain up into the air. 
It was in Bosnia that needs of the troops finally overcame the bureaucracy. The plastic magazine was flat out unacceptable, and entire battalions doing work up training in the States would buy (using money from their own pocket) metal thirty round magazines to take over with them.
An interesting aside to this is that as 30 round mags became illegal in Canada, a number of units tried to confiscate the privately owned metal mags on returning to Canada to add to their unit weapons inventory. I knew several guys who literally threw them away or destroyed them rather than give up something that the army had refused to supply them with.
6. Regarding double feeds: This frequently happens when firing at a rapid rate (either on repitition or just quick semi-auto) while using a 30 round mag that is actually loaded with 30 rounds. It was common practice to only load 28 rounds, as this seemed to ease the spring tension feeding rounds enough to mostly avoid double feeds into the weapon.

Regards,
Max


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (21 Jan 2003)

I asked a similar question a couple of years ago and eventually went right to Diemaco for the answer.  That thread might still be in the archives....


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (21 Jan 2003)

Ok here‘s a link with info straight from Diemaco:
 http://cdnarmy.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000077#000000


----------



## max flinch (21 Jan 2003)

Fortunecookie,

Thanks for posting that: It was an interesting read.

Max


----------



## Gunner109 (23 Jan 2003)

Well here I go with my thoughts.  The C7 fitted with the C79 sight is not a bad wpn at all.  Of course you run into the tunnel vision effect with optic sites verses iron sights. That is easily overcome with training. The sight it‘s self I am pretty sure is one solid piece of glass.  That is why it never foggs up inside.  The wpn like all wpns may jam the odd time.  That is why we have drills for other stoppages.  Prep for fire clearly states that all gass effected parts,  ie: bolt face, barrel, and chamber be free of lubercant.  All other parts like bearing surfaces should be oiled.  ie:  the bolt carrier all other moving parts.  Over all I would say that since the introduction to the forces.  People have become better shots.  This I think is the fact that it is a very easy rifel to fire and there is no flinch factor for people who are skidish of recoil.  This happened alot witht he C1,  but again it to could be overcome with training.


----------



## Korus (23 Jan 2003)

It‘s not fun when the bloody sight falls off... You‘ve always gotta check it to make sure it hasn‘t loosened up on you..


----------



## Gunner109 (23 Jan 2003)

Yes the sight is a bit of a problem, but it really is just an added piece that has to be maintained.


----------



## Guzman (23 Jan 2003)

this is abit off topic,but i didnt want to start a new thread for this.

exactly who uses the C8 carbine?

ive read its for mech crews,pilots and of course spec. ops types.but in most if not all of the pictures of 3ppcli in afghanistan they seem to be holding C8s.

ive also heard that para coys also use them.
can anyone clear this up?

p.s. C8 VS M4A1


----------



## Gunner109 (23 Jan 2003)

For the most part it is used by the Armoured,  in the army that is.  But It can be used by anyone if the requirement is there and authorized.


----------



## SNoseworthy (23 Jan 2003)

The Navy used to make use of it I think...not sure if they still do now that they have switched mainly to the MP5.


----------



## Guzman (24 Jan 2003)

no thoughts as to what 3ppcli was using?


----------



## Zoomie (24 Jan 2003)

Pilots using C8‘s <---- NO


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jan 2003)

3PPCLI Was using them in all the pictures i‘ve seen.
Probably a small comfort considering all the stuff they were carrying.


----------



## argyll2 (7 Oct 2003)

Hey guys,


One of my fellow troops said he saw a picture of a new c7 coming out. It has green or Cad Pad handguards and a adjustable butt like the C8. Does anyone have pics or has anyone heard of this weapon?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (7 Oct 2003)

C7-A2 
Observations 
The midlife replacement project is looking into making the C-7/C-8 a more versatile option.  The project management office admits that there are currently deficiencies in the C-7A1.  The Army‘s current proposal to correct the deficiencies of the C-7A1 is the C-7A2.  

Proposed Modifications are as follows:
Ambidextrous Magazine release;
Ambidextrous Fire Control Selector; 
Diemaco Tri- Rail 1 (Light and LAD Adapter) 
Green Furniture; 
Accuwedge; 
C-8 Telescopic butt

C-79 Optical Sight Upgrade 
Green C79 Sight Cover 
Replace Tritium Source (10year half life) 
Retrofit Gen 4  Side Spring


----------



## McInnes (7 Oct 2003)

A good read on the "upgrade" project by Cpl Boland.

C-7/C-8 MIDLIFE REPLACEMENT PROJECT ISSUES


----------



## nbk (7 Oct 2003)

Here is a PDF file showing the pics and a comparison.

I love the new look cosmetically, it looks a lot less american, more unique.

Incidentally they call the sling CANPAT, although I bet that is a typo.


----------



## Joel85 (7 Oct 2003)

Is it just me, or would it be a ****  of a lot more practical to reduce the barrel length, seeing as how they‘re already re-designing the whole weapon. A C-8 barrel would make a lot more sense.

just my 2 cents


----------



## McInnes (7 Oct 2003)

A shorter barrel would **** with the whole system. The accuracy and other things or what not. I don‘t know anything about it really, but I was just told that it would reduce accuracy or velocity. The spin of the bullet would change.


----------



## Rian_Ca (7 Oct 2003)

Im not an expert or anything,but isnt this costing alot when there are obviously more important things to spend what little money we have for the CF.I also thought that our rifles were alot better then the Americans and the Brits.


----------



## kiltedtradesman (8 Oct 2003)

Yes there would be a slight difference in the accuracy because of the shortened barrel (currently barrel length at .53m and rifling one right hand turn every 178mm, that‘s just under 3 turns before the round leaves the spout).  Who cares about the tech data.........  If you shorten the barrel, how am I going to measure my trench?  Just like the new helmets.   How am I supposed to shave now?

  :soldier:    :soldier:    :soldier:    :soldier:    :soldier:  "Brovo will take the trench"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2003)

I‘ve shot ORA at 500 mtrs, and won trophys and spoons, with the C7 and iron sights. The normal distance for engagement will be well under that. Something that‘s comfortable, I can move around in a restricted vehicle setting, is easy to grab, can hang easily from a lanyard on my shoulder, and still be available? Hey, the smaller the better, for my job, it‘s worth it. May not fit every situ, but nothing in our generic military ever does. Every one will have an opinion and bitch. Bottom line, we use what we get, no going back. Live with it, adapt and overcome!


----------



## Excolis (8 Oct 2003)

C7 being upgraded to the C7A2 rifle.  take a peek at this link and let me know what you think, and if this weapon is already in combat?

 http://www.tacticalkit.com/images/c7a2rifle.ppt


----------



## Excolis (8 Oct 2003)

i posted this in the canadian army area, but here it is for you.  take a peek at the pics and modifications to the C7A2.
looks amazing

 http://www.tacticalkit.com/images/c7a2rifle.ppt


----------



## MikeM (8 Oct 2003)

Theres another topic relating to the C7A2 on the fourms, you may want to take a peak at that for info/opinions, just a tip.


----------



## MG34 (8 Oct 2003)

Making due is a sad statement on the condition of our forces in all branches,I for one am sick and tired of having to deal with compromises made by higher the C7A2 is just such a compromise .As is it should not be fielded and held until the user requirements are made,or not fielded at all.


----------



## leopard11 (8 Oct 2003)

What is the accuwedge, and what does it do? ive never understood what it does?

Second of all the rifle looks effective and all for the field, but what will be used for rifle drill?  Those(C7A2) would look kinda stupid on parade (minor detail)
Just a thaught
Sgt, RCAC  :fifty:


----------



## Garry (8 Oct 2003)

agree with mg 34. If the people of Canada are going to send our kids in "harm‘s way" ,we owe it to them to go as well prepared as possible.

As to the barrel length, there‘s some interesting things going on on the Civ side. Seems that a shorter, stiffer barrel has better accuracy at battle ranges (300 yards and less) than the longer "rifle" barrels. As well, the higher twist rates are stabilising heavier bullets, with a little more KE at the longer ranges. 

Just have to be carefull that we don‘t "trick out" the C-? to the point that it is no longer an infantry tool.

Re Drill:  used to do drill with the 9mm smg, so anythings possible.

Quote: "They‘re pretty, but can they fight?"

Cheers-Garry


----------



## KevinB (8 Oct 2003)

MG34 is bang on the C7A2 is a poor boy ‘upgrade‘.

 Barrel length will affect velocity and 5.56mm relies on velocity to perform (read fragment)

For a 20" bbl with M855/C77 the frag range is ~150m
16" ~110m
14.5 (C8 and M4A1) ~45m

 a 16" bbl with Mk262 Mod1 (77gr Nolser BTHP) will frag out to 200m and is more accurate than C77/M855 to past 500m...







And the 16" is a lot more handy to do CQB/MOUT/FIBUA-OIBUA with.


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 Oct 2003)

Is this going to become standerd issue?


----------



## Excolis (9 Oct 2003)

i realized that after i posted...


----------



## Ray (11 Oct 2003)

hi guys 
I m in light infantry yes we do need a new weapon or fixs the sights on the ones we have.
thing to think about flaging your weapon and distance. also who will get it everybody or the soldier‘s who need it ? this is the big problem and well that is why it stinks a light infantry soldier get the same kit as everybody else (the shaft)and that is why we have to put out are own money to fix things ex, rucks why do we all get the same the ruck the one we have is alright but some need better ! I don‘t need a computer for work but people get them!
  :soldier:


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Oct 2003)

Just get back to the iron sight!!!!!
The first time I fired the C7 was on the Blare Shoot (Old Military Shoot for all Arm‘s in B.C.)
I scored a 38 out of 50 from 400 mt‘s with iron sight before this pissy telescopic sight!!

 Go back to iron sight‘s because it make‘s you a better marksmen!!!!


----------



## Ray (11 Oct 2003)

i m a marksman with the scope I shoot 82 of 84
with the run down it not bad but fog is a major problem and rain and snow well you got it we need something better and i don‘t think the the irion sight is the best for distance . I shot a 59 of 60 with iron sight but it‘s not the best for distance like on the 400m or more.
   :soldier:


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Oct 2003)

When it come‘s to combat and instinctive shooting you don‘t need the hassle of trying to focus to a scope!!! 
 Iron sight‘s give you that advantage of instinctive shooting and also it give‘s you your perifial vision to some extent which scope‘s don‘t!


----------



## Joel85 (11 Oct 2003)

They should issue extra harware with every weapon, i.e front handle, grip and butt stock. It should come with a tan and white set. This would be much better for desert, arctic and woodland environments.


----------



## KevinB (11 Oct 2003)

SPR EARL - the RED DOT CCO‘s (close combat optics) are much easier to use over irons.

 Magnified optics are extremely important for tgt recognition etc.


 A dual role scope like the Bindon Aiming Concept ACOG‘s (TA31, TA11 series and all the compact ACOG‘s)
 The scope can be used as a CCO and yet is a magnified optic. 
The USMC from their experiences in Iraq and A‘stan just specified the TA31F ACOG for all their M16A4‘s and options for the M4A1 carbines.  Plus they are lookign at a KAC built 16" midlength carbine to replace both...

Rifle furniture - who cares - you will paint it operationally to blend in with your surroundings.


----------



## Doug VT (11 Oct 2003)

Kevin, as usual you‘re right on the mark.  Too often people are woried about the things that don‘t really matter to performance.  It‘s always the simpler things that really improve a weapons performance.  The little things that always get overlooked, because they aren‘t as visible.


----------



## Ray (11 Oct 2003)

yes your right on the money about that but what i was getting at was this new c-7 should go to the soldiers who need it . the cf will just say no the cost to fit out all the troops with it will be to costly and it will get caned , just like the new ruck we asked for cost to much and we had to get somtime we all can use . 
  :soldier:


----------



## KevinB (11 Oct 2003)

Guys the $ stuff is BS.

It is about allocating money where we need it.

 2 or 3 less LAVIII‘s for instance would equip all the reg force infantry forces with a new rifle/carbine.

 1-2 more and a complement of rifle/carbine coudl be held for the reserve units.

We have big buck MNVG‘s, LAD/CLAD‘s why not the rifle?


----------



## Grunt_031 (11 Oct 2003)

It is both about $ and allocation.

Remember that we are a small military and we are a aging one as well. Most of our equipment needs upgrading and replacement and that is for all services. While I agree the replacement/ mods that KevinB is speaking about are the ideal solutions and I personally would love. The C7A2 upgrade will make improvements that we have asked for years for a small cost.(except the Triad mount which is horrid idea and big mistake)

A 16" barrel is the ideal but the current barrel is "adequate" and we have stock to last us another decade or so. We have used in the C7 in the grizzly which is smaller than the LAV3, it was a pain in the ***  but we could do it, we have used it in FIBUA etc. There is plan to implement the 16 when we begin to purchase additional stock of barrels but that is a few years away. The Light Infantry program 150 Million per BN may speed this up but I wouldn‘t hold my breath. 


If you are using the reasoning that 1 or 2 LAV less, why not buy ammo. You could have the greatest rifle, optics, and acessories in the world but if troops can‘t shoot a rifle, it just looks pretty.

Bottom line I think that there are other items we can allocate money to besides reducing the barrel 4 inchs.


----------



## MG34 (12 Oct 2003)

The canadian military through decades of mismanagement has had to adopt a policy of making due,this is indeed a sad statement on our government and the rampant mismanagement that is going in.The C7 upgrade is a chance for us to it right,I for one do not see why we should have to make due with something that falls short of the mark.I think it is now to the point where the originators of this program have dug in their heels and are refusing to hear about anything but their grand vision of how they see things should be.
 The fact that out military is so small does not mean we should have poor equipment,in fact it should mean the opposite.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2003)

Grunt,

 I will mirror MG34‘s comments - I do agree we need more ammo and more training - but when you get into the ‘close combat enviroment‘ which the CLS keeps refering too, the C7 is too large. I will not go on on how outdated and ineffective the CF FIBUA/OIBUA drills are, as that is fact and they are being revisited - but if you have taken any MOUT Carbine training you will see how it is impossible to employ a 20" rifle while conducting proper drills. 

 USMC pers were documented in IRAQ using captured AK-47‘s for MOUT due to their shorter length and the USMC is revisiting their outlook on the M16A4 rifle.

The C79 is a dog - it should be put out to pasture - the optic is great, the mount sucks - even in its 4th gen version.  

In my less than humble opinion the C7A2 is throwing good money after bad.


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2003)

http://nightoperations.com/Doc/Infantry-Rifle-Carbine1.pdf


----------



## KevinB (12 Oct 2003)

Accuracy is another point of contention. 

16" Midlength KAC URXII w/ 1:7 Krieger SS Match barrel - which during accuracy testing at KAC was a sub-moa gun - and still is.
However it is a custom gun pretty much handbuilt by LtCol (USMC ret.) Dave Lutz KAC‘s VP for MIL Operations. 
16" Midlength KAC FFRAS M/L w/ Armalite 1:9 Chrome BBL 
This hovers in the 1MOA area - but not with the Mk262 as it is a 1:9 twist
16" Midlenght ARMS SIR #58 w/ Armalite 1:9 pretty much ditto for the previous.

Ideally we could get a Diemaco 1:7 SFW barrel that is re-profiled into a gov‘t profile midlength gasposition, but I (and some friends and mentors) are pretty much alone on this.

Since the factory 16" bbls are identical in accuracy out to 500m so far as their 20" factory brothers - my interpolation is that the Diemaco made 1:7 Midlength could/should be a sub-moa factory barrel (based on my shooting a countless number of other D bbl‘s in both 14.5" C8 and 20" C7).
Thus out to our 300m ‘max‘ point tgt range (book value) there woudl be no decrease in accuracy.

For point two - no decrease in effectiveness, one either buys in to the Col Fackler M.D., 5.56mm data or not - and the corresponding Gel Test protocols. 
If one does (as I do) the 2500fps impact velocity is the key for the C77/SS109 projectile for it to yaw then fragment and 2700fps the preferred.
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" 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.


----------



## Ray (13 Oct 2003)

wow kev you realy know your weapons way to go!!!
sad thing is they have one thing on there mind and it will be money we‘ll get what fits them to bad . ****  the realy sad thing is the us civis have better then the canadian military


----------



## onecat (13 Oct 2003)

US civis can pretty much out any nation in terms of small arms.  I think you even buy a G-36 there.  And if your really bored buy full-auto M-2 for your back yard range.  

In terms of kit I think we‘re on pare with a lot of Nato nations but I could be wrong.  But comparing Canada to the US is always going to end in saddness when it come to small arms kit.


----------



## MG34 (13 Oct 2003)

Actually the G36 semi auto varient is non restricted here.
 With an Army our size there is no excuse for not having the proper kit espescially if one looks at all of the money wasting projects that are on the go for example: The Official Language Express,Safety Digest,Maple Leaf,trials and evaluations on kit that is either already issued (Flack jackets for example) or already proven itself (The McMillian TAC-50), the list goes on and on.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Oct 2003)

I don‘t consider the  _Maple Leaf_  to be a waste of money. In fact if anything, I think it should be expanded and dropped off where the public can see what the military is doing. You need a newspaper like this to keep the public and other members of your military informed on whats going on throughout the Forces. If there is nothing like this all it does is loosen the tie that bind us and allow contempt for each other to breed.


----------



## mattoigta (13 Oct 2003)

that slideshow should explain more in depth the new additions

-what are the batteries in the pistol grip for?
-whats the point of that addition to the cocking handle?
-what do they mean by telescoping butt?


----------



## MG34 (14 Oct 2003)

The batteries are for Night Vision optics 
The addition to the cocking handle has several reasons it allows a better grip,it allows you to cock the rifle with gloves of mitts on and makes it easier to cock the weapon with the optics on it.
 The telescoping butt means that the butt sides in to 4 positions to allow you to adjust it for body armor,winter kit and to fully collapse it.


----------



## MG34 (14 Oct 2003)

I disagree totally that rag is a total waste of cash.A 2 page piece on each service  while the rest is committed to useless crap about politically correct drivel that is dedicated to showing how "diverse we are",almost as bad as thos pathetic decals on the CF buses.


----------



## mattoigta (14 Oct 2003)

right on thanks

i kinda figured that about the cocking handle, and the butt - just got thrown off by the term "telescoping"

are they plannying on changing the colour schemes for the C9‘s and C6s then?


----------



## Infanteer (14 Oct 2003)

I am so glad that the Maple Leaf is NOT generally available to the public, lest they think the military is a bunch of retarded pussies.
Every time I pick up a copy of the Maple Leaf I am tempted to sign my walking papers....


----------



## GerryCan (14 Oct 2003)

There are a few good ideas getting put into the rifle but for the most part it‘s a waster of time and money. Cadpat sling, wow! Because I was really worried about giving away my position with my sling...almost as good an idea as Crudpat boots. The night optics is also a good idea on paper, but how often will we actually use them? Will they be the same quality as our garbage NVG‘s now? What will we do with our stockpiles of para flares??


----------



## McInnes (14 Oct 2003)

Yeah, the cadpat sling is a waste. However, I don‘t see that the cadpat boots are such as waste. If you look at pics of ppl in cadpat outlined against a forest or something, if it wasnt for the rifles or boots, I wouldnt see them. Also, apparently the first thing guys look for is the black boots when trying to spot a guy in cadpat w/ and w/o NV.


----------



## MG34 (14 Oct 2003)

Well GerryCan the night optics are used every time we deploy into the field,I don‘t know about what your unit does but the rest of the Army does in fact use night sights .The Kite sight is an awesome piece of kit allowing the rifleman to engage out to 600m and ID targets at around 100-200m depending on ambiant light.It can be mounted on the C7A1,C9,C6. The newest NVG the PVS-14 is about the best NVG I have seen to date espescially when used with the PAQ-4 IR laser.
 The sling is a good idea as blck is  not a good colour out in the boonies any way we reduce it is good for us,added to the fact that the colour black will glow when looked at with NVGs it makes perfect sense.
 I donot agree with the majority of the C7A2 project but every now and then they do get something halfassed right.


----------



## fusilier955 (14 Oct 2003)

i heard the C7A2 may have problems with heating and warping due to the shorter barrel.  has anyone else heard of this this?  i was told that it also was a problem in the C8.  i would just like an explaination on why it happens if it is true.


----------



## MG34 (14 Oct 2003)

No such issues,barrel length has little to do with how heat is handled.Barrel thickness is the prime factor in handling heat although I have never heard of a C8 barrel warping,the amount of rounds fired through it to cause this much heat would almost certainly stop the rifle from firing before this happened if it ever could.


----------



## Derick Lewis (20 Oct 2003)

The New C7 incompasses and addresses many of the points brought up about the short comings of the Original C7 ie: too long for FIBUA, too big for vehicle crews Etc Etc, It does so with little to no change in preformance range or acuracy why cry foul when the majority have yet to even see the weapon in real life, I fired the weapong at the Dimaco plant not to long agao and real liked it, my personal oppinion of course but hey isn‘t everyone‘s comments on here there oppinion, about the only thing I think looks bad is the CADPAT hand guards and acurtriments, but then again I think the military is going to far with the CADPAT design like boots for example.


----------



## fusilier955 (20 Oct 2003)

much appreciated for the answer MG34


----------



## McInnes (21 Oct 2003)

So far I have failed to see what the problem is with CADPAT boots...


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2003)

Desert Rat,

 ARE you a 031?
Because I can tell you that every 031 I have spoken too does not like the C7A2 - or if they do a quick lecture on it versus other options will set them against it.

There are no CADPAT handguard on it - that was an option that was discounted several months ago (the CADPAT boot trials @ 1PPCLI were a fiasco)


----------



## MG34 (21 Oct 2003)

I have handled the C7A2 as well and the new C9,and the C7Ct,not impressed at all.Firing a couple shots at the Diemaco test range does not mean that the rifle is good to go,because it is not,slap on a PAQ 4 and Surefire light to the triad rail and see how well it handles.


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2003)

MG34 great point - part of what I missed - with the C8 butt the C7A2 is muzzle heavy (I would say awkward) We have placed C8 butts on the C7‘s before and found it not worth it - add a PEQ-2 and Surefire M962 out on the TRIAD and you have an extremely ungainly weapon that snaggs on any and all branches etc that you pass by.


----------



## mattoigta (21 Oct 2003)

New C9?


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2003)

C9A2

Option of 20" or 14" barrels
Steel Feed cover rail w/ original iron sight 
C8 butt
etc.


----------



## mattoigta (21 Oct 2003)

I thought they were getting rid of optical sights on the C9‘s?

are those coming out when the new c7‘s are supposed to?


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2003)

The IRON‘s are a "SECONDARY" sighting system...

 IIRC there is some talk of using the EOTECH 552‘s on the C9A2  (A much better idea than the C79)


----------



## mattoigta (22 Oct 2003)

don‘t they have huge problems with tunnel vision when using it in a sustained role? why use an optical sight for an area effect weapon?


----------



## KevinB (22 Oct 2003)

The difference is that the people who chose the C79 for the C9 were not machine gunners - things like beaten zone etc. menat nothing to them.


----------



## Derick Lewis (23 Oct 2003)

Kevin

    Yeah I am a 031 and I did like the new weapon but as was said a few rounds do not a fair trial make, I like to give stuff time to pass or fail on their own merits for myself and not others reasoning, As for the new C9 I did trials on in Gagetown last year not a long one but a a few belts to test the acuracy of the differnt models vs the Original, I found I liked them too, but I was also told they were mainly for SF and Para units and would likely not see total distrubution Infantry wide.


----------



## KevinB (23 Oct 2003)

Desert Rat, okay I must have mistaken your original reply.  
I have been very forunate to be able to try several ‘competing‘ (read US initiatives) designs, and from my experiences with them cannot comprehend why we have chosen the C7A2.

-Kevin


----------



## Enzo (7 Nov 2003)

I was following the thread about "favourite rifles." Had me thinking that everything mentioned was contemporary or something from a previous generation (MG 42, L1A1, etc...) I know we‘ll be using M16 variants for some time, but the US is working towards a replacement at some point in the next decade or so. A few companies have produced prototypes (most notably the OICW, etc...)

What‘s the thought guys. If the US goes for a infantry rifle which has an integrated thermal/gps/laser/video camera/gameboy sight and a tactical 25mm airburst capable grenade launcher. Will we follow?

And do we need to be in such a "Land Warrior" climate? Isn‘t this just more to go wrong, carry and distract?

Opinions?


----------



## jonsey (7 Nov 2003)

I‘m kind of mixed about the OICW and any simmilar weapons that may pop up. Having a weapon that complex requires depending on a lot of technology. That technology isn‘t really reliable (look at all the problems people have with Windows, I doubt you want your rifle getting infected with the Blaster worm. Not to mention the problems that the OICW has encountered so far, with grenades detonating in the magazine, or because of a messed up loading program).

Not only that, but look at the size of the thing. It‘s about the size of a machine gun (C9?), but operates like a C7/M203.  I do like the laser-based grenade aiming sight, but that‘s about it.

It‘s just too much to go wrong compared to what you get, IMO. Although I do like the idea of a gameboy attachment   . 


Disclaimer: I currently do not have any experience with any gun. My mother never let me own a gun, and was very strict about it. She even tried to keep me from having waterguns.  She just said that maybe it would have been better if she DID let me play with toy guns (or even go to a rifle range). heh heh heh.


----------



## Sauder (8 Nov 2003)

Which gun is better the canadian c7 or the american m16??
    :gunner:


----------



## Redeye (8 Nov 2003)

First of all, they‘re rifles, not "guns", and I‘m assuming that you mean the M16A2 - that and the C7 are virtually identical except for a few minor variances.  The main difference is that the C7 is capable of firing fully automatic, and the M16A2 has a 3 round burst limiter.  The C7A1 has a pseudo-Weaver rail and sports a C79 3.4x Elcan optical sight.

Otherwise, for the most part they‘re the same.


----------



## Sauder (9 Nov 2003)

I would use the C7 before i used an M16(A2),i cant stand 3 round burst.


----------



## onecat (9 Nov 2003)

Having never used the C-7 or M16A2, I‘m not really sure what the diffence would be in terms of the burst fire.  I would think that for most troops the 3 burst would work fire, and you can keep better track of your rounds that way.  

I‘ll leave it to the experts, so if anyone can explain pro‘s and con‘s that would be great.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2003)

How come you can‘t stand the ol 3 round burst and what weapons were you using, Saunder.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Nov 2003)

I remember we did an exchange years ago and the Yanks neglected to remind us about the 3 rnd burst so we thought we were having stoppages and went through our IAs. Wasn‘t until after we finished the mout training and got our debrief that both us and the US realized how serious something like these differences can be.


----------



## Sauder (9 Nov 2003)

I never said i did use a weapon and plus i am too young to even join the army i just saying that i think it is a bad idea to have to pull the trigger over and over again in close quarters if you missed.I think it be just easier to hold down the trigger until you hit the guy but thats just my opinion.
  :akimbo:    :mg:    :fifty:


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2003)

Ahh. gotchya.

Firing a weapon on automatic is very hard to control. IT may look easy but it‘s not. If you wanted to hit someone at close quarters i personally think it‘s much easier to use well aimed shots or well aimed bursts. Even in training we dont enter a room and just hold down the truigger, we take short controled bursts, something akin to 3 round bursts.  Going in on automatic is a good way to run out of ammo really fast not to mention heat up your barrel something fierce.  Just lack of first hand experience, not comming down on ya buddy.


----------



## Sauder (9 Nov 2003)

your right i never thought about it like that, o‘well you live and learn althought I plan on joining the army and I still have alot to learn.


----------



## Marauder (9 Nov 2003)

Going rock n‘ roll in FIBUA is frowned upon, since you can‘t control where you are placing rounds. Muzzle control is paramount when heading into an unkown situation such as door kicking into a room in a hostile building. Target ID is everything, no sense going in wasting rounds on non-combatants, and if you have hostiles and non-combatants in the same room, you‘re better off IDing the hostiles and engaging them first, because they‘re what‘s going to kill you first.

For FIBUA, I‘d rather have an M4 with the SOPMOD kit, but if you join the CF, you‘ll quickly realize what works best in a battle now-a-days isn‘t cheap nor is a lot of it made in Quebec, so you‘ll have to make due with the **** you get issued.


----------



## GhostRecce (9 Nov 2003)

Rifle.   :mg:


----------



## Vigilant (10 Nov 2003)

A C7A1 on FULL AUTO can discharge 30 rounds in approximately 2.1 seconds.

The reason there is a three round limit is because the Yanks are all cowboys and they found that their troops had a tendency to exhaust their entire clips within the first few second of a battle. Having most of your squad reloading in the first few seconds of a firefight is not a good way to start it. So the 3 round limit helps to increase accuracy, self control, and ammo usage.

One major difference that you‘ve all failed to mention is the spent casing deflector. Not a big deal to some, but a good example of Canadian manners on a Canadian rifle.


----------



## chriscalow (10 Nov 2003)

I like the deflector.  I shoot left handed and I‘m assuming that if there is a need for a deflector then the casings would normally fly back and hit me in the face, that would not be something to look forward to.


----------



## Vigilant (10 Nov 2003)

Like I said before, the rifle shows Canadian manners.

Another good part about the deflector is that you don‘t have to crawl all over casings when you have to advance after firing off a couple of mags.


----------



## scm77 (11 Nov 2003)

Green or Cadpat furniture is all good if you are in an area with trees but will it be able to be changed if you are in the desert?


----------



## MG34 (11 Nov 2003)

Sure it can it‘s called Krylon paint!!!Either way it is better than black any day of the week in any theatre.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (20 Jan 2004)

I was wondering what the chances are of an infantry soldier operating the C8 Carbine, and what defines it next to the C7. Im aware that it is more compact, but is there anything else that makes it stand out? As well, is it just me..or is it an exact mock-up of the American CAR-15?


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2004)

Research this forum and then come back with a question that hasn‘t been answer already.


----------



## the patriot (25 Jan 2004)

Hello All,

Just a thought to start some healthy discussion on this topic.  Do you feel that it is time to replace the C7 as the operational service rifle in the Canadian Armed Forces?

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (25 Jan 2004)

Hello All,

Just a thought to start some healthy discussion on this topic.  Do you feel that it is time to replace the C7 as the operational service rifle in the Canadian Armed Forces?

-the patriot-


----------



## webster (25 Jan 2004)

The c7/c7A1 rifle is being upgraded I believe to the C7A2...heres a link.

 http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-c7a2.htm


----------



## webster (25 Jan 2004)

The c7/c7A1 rifle is being upgraded I believe to the C7A2...heres a link.

 http://www2.sfu.ca/casr/101-c7a2.htm


----------



## Pikache (25 Jan 2004)

And since we have a new forum to deal with this stuff, off it goes there.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2004)

Question:

Why would we replace what is argueably the best family of assault rifles in the world today?

Answer:

We shouldn‘t, despite what all the 17 year olds at the offical Armyapp board say, we do not need the AK-47 for the infantry.  With all of the issues facing the Army today, C7 replacement is last on the list of things to deal with.
However, in terms of an upgrade, this proposal seems to do the best in serving the infantry.
C7A3 proposal


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (25 Jan 2004)

has anybody here fired both the C7 and M16?

I‘ve gotten into many debates over which is better, and obviously lose since I‘ve never fired either!

From a soldiers perspective, not a scientist. Which would you prefer?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2004)

Its like comparing a Camaro to a Firebird...it just depends if you like flip up headlights or not.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (25 Jan 2004)

are you saying both are exact, minus a few fancy features? I‘ve been told the m16 is much better..solely because it can be adapted to different calibres. Dont ask me wtf this means..but can the C7 do similar?


----------



## onecat (25 Jan 2004)

can do that with the C-7 as well.  Its the same rifle, only built in Canada.  Their a few different features but its the same weapon.  If on US run forums, then of course they are going to say their‘s better.  Its same on Canadian forums, only ours if better.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2004)

Shortbus, you obviously lack any knowledge of the M-16 family of rifles.  Do some more resource on the internet before you drag this thread down to explaining the basics over and over again.


----------



## Pikache (25 Jan 2004)

Or run a search. It‘s been discussed at least few times.


----------



## hoganshero (26 Jan 2004)

Has there been any interest on the part of the Canadian Forces in the results of the US tests in changing the calibre of the M-16 to 6.88mm?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (26 Jan 2004)

Short...I have fired both and I tell you that 3 rnd burst on the A2 is a pain, especially when you forget about it. I found beyond that and the sights there was no real difference, but as a matter of pride give me a C7 anyday.


----------



## Yeoman (26 Jan 2004)

having put several hundred rounds down range with both I have to say that the c7 is better then the m16.
so far I‘ve had less stopage‘s with the c7.
but really to me I personally see no reason to replace the c7.
however if dnd came up to me and told me that they wanted me to design the next standard assualt rifle, I personally would like to see something similar to a c8. the barrel would be a wee bit longer though, and instead of a open bolt, I‘d like to see a close bolt. as well I would like to see the 7.62 come back if it was of a close bolt design (a G3 rilfe is of this design, and it pratically stands still when being shot on full-auto).
really my only two complaints with the new c7 (so far as I have yet too shoot one) is 1) the rail system at the front of the barrel. ever so slowly because of firing the rifle, the front of the barrel with warp, the handguards should have been replaced with a RIS system. and 2) the length of the barrel. it‘s not a question of if you put a collasible stock on it. it‘s still going to be a pain to haul around in the tight areas of an apc or during fibua. 
But like I stated I have not actually used the weapon yet, so until I do my mind is thinking like that.
Greg


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Jan 2004)

Dragoon - I can agree with you about the 3-rd burst feature.  Although I have only fired the C7, not the M16, I had no trouble keeping my bursts down to 2-3 rds on my own, without the need for a burst mode.  And since we are trained to use full auto during trench clearing and room clearing (although that changed mid-way through my courses to no blind-firing), having it on burst mode would be annoying, to say the least.


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Jan 2004)

Yeoman, maybe I‘m a little rusty, and to be honest, I haven‘t seen a C8, but if it is at all like the M4 or the C7 for that matter, it doesn‘t have an open bolt -- unless you run out of rounds, of course.

The closed bolt design makes it more accurate, which remains one of the advantages of this weapon platform.


----------



## Enzo (27 Jan 2004)

The C7 utilizes a rotating bolt guys.

Yeo - let me get this straight. You‘d like to see a 7.62 16" eh? Interesting. I think we‘re holding onto the NATO std for awhile. But here‘s something for you guys to check out.

 http://www.tromix.com/Tromix_458.htm 

Ever hear of a "Sledgehammer" rifle?


----------



## Yeoman (27 Jan 2004)

what the **** is that thing?!? that didn‘t explain anything to me. I‘m lost. looks like I‘ve got something to keep myself amused for 30 minutes now.
I‘d like to see a 7.62 if we got it to be a rotating closed bolt like the g3, mp5, and I believe the g36 is like. the majority of H&K assualt rifles and submachineguns are of this design.
I just personally think that the 5.56 doesn‘t truly do the job, I mean really it‘s no good past 500 meters basically, but a 7.62 is good for how far? 900 meters easily.
but of course that‘s just what I‘d like to see, wether or not it could work, I have no idea.
Greg


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (27 Jan 2004)

Didn‘t rangers in Mogadisu find 5.56 inadequet. It really has little stopping power. They had to tag skinnys 4 or 5 times.A delta guy brought an m14 7.62 and had no problems with one shot one kill. As for burst mode. Wasn‘t that a result of Vietnam and guys blasting away holding their rifles over their heads hiding below walls, and into the jungle? I think the average troop in the CF knows about consevaton on ammo. We have to . Our budgets down allow anything less.


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Jan 2004)

S_Baker...

Our room clearing doctrine USED to be, "Throw grenade, wait for blast, then spray inside"... but they‘ve changed it now.

Apparently one reason for the change is that if you throw a nade in first, in most cases you will get injured as not all houses are made like the ones in fibua sites (interior walls of brick/stone).  Also, the potential for civilian casualties, etc. 

So, this summer, without a PAM, they taught us the drill on our BIQ course.  It was very ad-hoc, as there actually wasn‘t supposed to be any fibua training in our shortened BIQ course.  We entered a room in teams of two, splitting the room in half and basically doing a "door kick" entry, one going one way, the other going the other way, staying against the wall and looking very SWAT while having the rifle at the ready, looking for targets.  They also told us to call out things like, "Window, left" or "Mousehole, Low Right", and "Two enemy dead" before shouting "Room clear".

BOOMER004... there is a whole school of thought (they are called "old timers") who think the 5.56mm is a useless plinking round.  The main reason why NATO - or at least the UK - switched from 7.62mm to 5.56mm, is because of the Bloody Sunday massacre, when British troops fired on armed republican insurgents in Northern Ireland, and civilians who were in the area and even those not in the area were killed by overpenetrating 7.62mm rounds, which had gone through walls, etc.  At the time, the Brits were using the FN‘s.

Other reasons of economy no doubt led to the adoption of the 5.56mm, all of which have been discussed to death (you can carry more, etc).

I think Stoner or Armalite make an M16 variant in 7.62mm, and it sounds like it would probably be a great service rifle.  But the "plinking" round will be with us for the forseeable future, I would think.


----------



## Yeoman (27 Jan 2004)

yeah stoner does make a 7.62 version, I have yet to fire that though *knocks on wood*
I was not aware they cut the fibua stuff. I think that stuff is pretty **** important these days.
I love fibua, that‘s all I ever want to  do when I‘m playing airsoft, or when I‘m training. I bloody well love the stuff.
Greg


----------



## Pikache (27 Jan 2004)

5.56 does more damage to human tissue than 7.62 would. Something about yawing and tumbling and fragmenting inside the body.

The passage about Delta operator cursing 5.56mm was really 5.56 AP round, not ball round.


----------



## D-n-A (27 Jan 2004)

In the book, it sounded like the Rangers had to fire 3-5 rounds into a Somali before the Somali notiched he was being shot.

That could also have something to do with a lot of the somali‘s being high on kak? or whatever drug it was.


The one Ranger who had a M14 was knocking down everyone he shot in 1 round though.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jan 2004)

You know, not to get off topic here but I‘d like to see some more time on the range regardless of rifle or calibre.


----------



## Pikache (27 Jan 2004)

Bah. I‘m reading BHD again just to confirm this.

*CFL*, who doesn‘t want to spent more time on range?


----------



## Slumsofsackville (28 Jan 2004)

I will shoot all day, when it comes to cleaning, No thank...But have too :-(


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (28 Jan 2004)

Cleaning a weapon from off a range is a piece of cake. Blanks are just brutal


----------



## Driverguy (28 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [QB] has anybody here fired both the C7 and M16?
> 
> I‘ve gotten into many debates over which is better, and obviously lose since I‘ve never fired either!
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jan 2004)

Did we rebuild the M16A4?  You might want to re-evaluate that statement.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (29 Jan 2004)

YEAH With a 16" Carbine, CARBINE !!! 

It‘s something about the carbon I dont like, being a shooter, it‘s like cleaning my SKS after firing 100rds. They use a Dirty powder. 

As long as I got hand cleaner and hot water it‘s easy.  oppps my secret is out there.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (29 Jan 2004)

HI, Patriot!     still up to your old tricks,beating a dead horse, huh!
All others- notice Patriot hasn‘t said anything yet? He does this to keep his posts up.  :dontpanic:


----------



## AlphaCharlie (31 Jan 2004)

Not that i‘m an expert, but I recall hearing something about *IF* Canada gets new rifles they will be of a new calibre... 6.3mm or something.

I‘m not sure though, I saw it a long time ago.

Personally, I would like to see H&K G36E rifles, but then again I am biased to Germany stuff (porsche, H&K, etc)...


----------



## Roche (3 Feb 2004)

They‘re throwing alot of ideas up into the air regarding any new rifle replacement, I found an informative site here 

 http://nightoperations.com/C-7_A2.htm


----------



## Slumsofsackville (3 Feb 2004)

That link is Kevin B site, What ever you want to know, he will tell yah.

C7 is a good weapon, just needs a shorter barrel.


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Robert KM:
> [qb] That link is Kevin B site, What ever you want to know, he will tell yah.
> 
> C7 is a good weapon, just needs a shorter barrel. [/qb]


And redisgn the bolt !!
No little fiddly part‘s    

We don‘t need little fiddly part‘s as they get lost!

KISS!!


----------



## Roche (4 Feb 2004)

We‘ll just have to wait and see how the C7 A2 turns out and go from there


----------



## Slumsofsackville (4 Feb 2004)

Dont lose the parts then.


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (4 Feb 2004)

Fiddly parts? Put the timbits and double double down when your cleaning your service rifle sapper.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (4 Feb 2004)

I use my hat to put the parts in the field, then my hair smells like CLP, but haven‘t lost a part yet .


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

You shouldn‘t be taking the bolt apart in the field.  That‘s why their is a difference between a field strip and a detailed strip.


----------



## Roche (4 Feb 2004)

Really? no way
lol


----------



## Marauder (4 Feb 2004)

Sapper, the C7 bolt ain‘t got nothin‘ on the .50‘s bolt. That thing should have a manual of its own.   

As for all the kiddies who badmouth the C7 without having fired it... well, you‘re simple. Can‘t rephrase that to make it sound any nicer. Sorry. 

The only bitch is the barrel could stand to be a few inches shorter, a multi-position stock would be nice, and having a rail system would be better than guntaping **** like maglights on the handguards. And the C79 sight should be taken out back and put out of its misery. In essense, a heavy barrel C8 with a RAS and ACOG on it would be just the ticket IMO. Add an M14 or two in at the platoon level for DM purposes and you‘re laughing.

And there‘s no sense in switching to some experiemental caliber when 5.56 is the NATO standard and is battle proven. Of all the things the Army needs, ******* around in selcting a new rifle is not one of those.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

...and that friends, endeth the lesson.


----------



## Slumsofsackville (4 Feb 2004)

Good points, except the hb.

Med or Standard barrel is fine, HB don‘t work with M203‘s well. HB just extra weight. Talk to Kevin B he will tell yah everything.


----------



## portcullisguy (5 Feb 2004)

Robert KM, you would have really impressed me if you said you used your hat and cleaned your rifles in the DARK without losing any pieces.

I seem to remember doing this last summer in an effort whilst in the field to keep the weapon clean, although I can‘t recall what course I was on.

Having to do everything by feel because you can‘t see is a pain in the arse.  But, yes, the hat is very helpful for not losing the pieces -- assuming you can find your HAT in the dark!  doh!


----------



## Roche (5 Feb 2004)

He basically just defined what the "new" rifle would be, the question is, will we ever see it?


----------



## Franko (5 Feb 2004)

Nope. Primary scope is for the regs ASAP with res units being picked up later.

The whole project could be scraped the way things are going anyway...we‘ll have to wait and see.

Regards


----------



## scm77 (27 Feb 2004)

Diemaco changed their website around.  It now includes the C7A2.  It‘s got a couple pictures, it also details the new magazine catch.

 http://www.diemaco.com/c7a2.htm  

It looks pretty good.    :mg:


----------



## koalorka (27 Feb 2004)

That‘s a sexy rifle.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (27 Feb 2004)

I didn‘t realize they manufactured a C8A2 also, but ...

I‘m tempted to scan some FTX pics of me and my C7 to enter in their picture contest for free stuff (but not a rifle, as the website says    )


----------



## YoreL (27 Feb 2004)

http://www.diemaco.com/c7a2.htm   <- Direct Link


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Feb 2004)

The black and green scheme look ugly.


----------



## Evan (27 Feb 2004)

yea, it kinda does, i think it would be nice just with black furniture, and then just allow soldiers to paint there weapons to there needs.


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Feb 2004)

Still staying with the optical sight   
Even though I shoot very well with it I also did with iron sight‘s  :soldier:  

We should keep it simple!
Leave optical sights to the snipers.


----------



## Jungle (28 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by CFL:
> [qb] The black and green scheme look ugly. [/qb]


It‘s not supposed to be cute...


----------



## Bulvyn (28 Feb 2004)

I think the original design used CADPAT instead of the solid green. Wonder why they changed.


----------



## Yeoman (28 Feb 2004)

it was a cost thing. just cheaper to paint it all green then to do cadpat.
nice to see something like that come out eventually, even with it‘s warts and all it‘ll hopefully be a better weapon.
Greg


----------



## JasonH (28 Feb 2004)

Either way, gotta say the C7 is one beautiful weapon despite that green.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (28 Feb 2004)

Has anyone heard if/when the updated rifles will be issued to the reserves?

Its not like they are radically different designs anyways, so it might be a while for the upgrade to be completed.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (28 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by hawain_light:
> [qb] yea, it kinda does, i think it would be nice just with black furniture, and then just allow soldiers to paint there weapons to there needs. [/qb]


It does seem like this would be a better option, because the paint job done by the soldiers would be more irregular, and better camoflague.

On the other hand, the furniture can still be painted to break up the outline more.


----------



## Evan (28 Feb 2004)

I dont know to much about the honor guard in ottawa, but im guessing that they would keep the origanil c7 due to it looking more for dress then the c7a2, could this be correct?


----------



## D-n-A (28 Feb 2004)

hawain_light, thats the Governor General Foot Guards

Honor Guard is a US thing I believe.


I heard that the reserves will get the C7A2, but wont be for awhile.


----------



## Redeye (28 Feb 2004)

D-n-A, that‘s the Ceremonial Guard, actually.  It‘s composed of members of the Governor-General‘s Food Guards (garrisoned at Cartier Square Drill Hall in Ottawa), and of the Canadian Grenadier Guards from Montreal.  Both units accept attached members to fill all the CG line serials in the summer.


----------



## D-n-A (28 Feb 2004)

Ah, I stand corrected. So the GGFG only has members in the CG during the summer?

I read an article about 5 recruits who joined the GGFG an it sounded like they were the only unit that did that.


----------



## Evan (28 Feb 2004)

"that‘s the Ceremonial Guard, actually. It‘s composed of members of the Governor-General‘s Food Guards (garrisoned at Cartier Square Drill Hall in Ottawa), and of the Canadian Grenadier Guards from Montreal. Both units accept attached members to fill all the CG line serials in the summer."- Redeye

thank you, that clears up two questions i was about to ask


----------



## Doug VT (28 Feb 2004)

We‘ll have to turn in our old rifles to get upgraded first.  You‘ll send in your units C7‘s and get someone else‘s back.  It‘s not like were getting a whole new rifle.  I would imagine that the reserves will be last on the list, same as when we got the upgrade to the Elcan(flat top upper receivers)
It would be nice to have a better sight.  The Elcan may be pretty tough physically, but it‘s zero is easily lost.


----------



## Redeye (29 Feb 2004)

How long did the exchange to flat-top upper receivers take?  I imagine the C7A2 upgrade would entail about the same amout of time.  I wonder if they‘re getting new uppers entirely again or if the front sight rails are just being retrofitted...


----------



## Canadian Patriot (1 Mar 2004)

Hey everyone, I was just wondering if anyone has been to the new Diemaco website and seen a picture of the C7A2? (http://www.diemaco.com/ -no direct link to the C7A2...you‘ll have to navigate on your own) The magazine shown fitted to it has some sort of loop on the bottom of it, and I was wondering if anybody knows what its for? It seems kinda stupid if its to hook on to webbing or a belt or something...especially leaving the rounds exposed and hanging out at the bottom...And if anybody knows exactly what its for, does the CF actually use them? I havn‘t seen any yet (but then again I just started my BMQ about a month and a half ago)


----------



## Redeye (1 Mar 2004)

That‘s a device called a "Magpull" designed to allow the magazine to be easily removed from a pouch and or attached to webbing, carabiners, etc.  They‘re not used by the CF, though I have seen some people adding loops of paracord to the bottom of a mag for the same purpose.  That system isn‘t a bad idea except the loop should be rotated 90degrees to be more effective for stacking on a carabiner.  Even so, it seems not really necessary, most people just through empty mags down their shirt on an attack and sort it out on consolidation.


----------



## D-n-A (1 Mar 2004)

I‘ve seen a fair bit of americans with these home made magpulls while their on operation


----------



## SteelMag (27 Apr 2004)

Hey im new to the forum, whats up guys?

Anyways, I know that the CAF uses the C7 and C7A1 series of rifles right now.  Im just wondering if they give everyone the optical sights or do the majority of soldiers get iron sights (ie, carrying handle) on their issued rifles.  Most of the photos i have seen of Canadian soldiers seem to have C7A1 rifles with a scope on them.  

Also whats the difference between the C7 and the M-16A2 used by the US?. I know that the US one has 3-round burst instead of full auto like the C7. But are there any other differences??


----------



## AlphaCharlie (27 Apr 2004)

All C7A1 rifles come with the optical zoom. None of our rifles use iron sights or have a carrying handle.

The C7 is basically an M16 with a few minor changes such as fire rate (m16 has burst, c7 has full auto), the C7 has a spent casing deflector for lefties on it, C7 has a x3.5 zoom while M16 uses iron sights. 

Those are the only major differences. Infact, I think those are the only ones.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (27 Apr 2004)

er...the C7 is still in use, thats the version without the ELCAN sight.  Its what reg force people learn first on basic training, while all reservists go straight to the A1, I think.


----------



## SteelMag (27 Apr 2004)

Thanks for the answers!

But why would you train the reserve with optical sights exclusivly?.  Wouldnt it be a better idea to train with iron sights because you could transfer that training to pretty well any other rifle you could find (they are not all the same but lining up the sights is useful to know how to do).

And what about these new C7A2 ive been hearing about.  Any of them around?


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Apr 2004)

the C7A2 is still not in active service.

the C7 with the iron sights isn‘t used any more, so why train people on it?  anyone can figure out how to line up an iron sight, and when they learn to use the c6 and 9mm they‘ll get a class on it anyway.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Apr 2004)

Comparing the C7 and M16 has been covered a few times, a search of all open forum on the terms "C7 M16" gives 39 results. These may include the information you seek:

  http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/277?  

  http://army.ca/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/21/65  

  http://army.ca/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/21/21  

  http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/20/7?  

  http://army.ca/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/277  

  http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/1/627  

If you want to look for other relevant threads, try the Search button in the upper right of the page.


----------



## axeman (27 Apr 2004)

the C7 is still used here and there in the regs in 3 BN PPCLIU  in the line companies you used to have your choice of scoped or unscoped.


----------



## kruger (27 Apr 2004)

The Elcan optical scope is quite lovely, accurate and rugged. The americans have adopted it for operations in the Middle East, I saw it being mounted on M249 SAW‘s. 
Has anybody seen it being used on M240B or M240G machine guns in US service? And would it be possible to do the same and place it on our C6‘s?


----------



## AlphaCharlie (27 Apr 2004)

scopes on machine guns is pretty pointless.


----------



## kruger (27 Apr 2004)

So why is it installed on the C9A1, which is classified as an LMG?


----------



## Superman (27 Apr 2004)

I‘d think you would get a pretty bad ring around your eye if you were looking through the scope while firing a machine gun


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Apr 2004)

It‘s not a zoom lens, it magnifies.

How would a civvie know how lovely, rugged and accurate an Elcan is.

It‘s mounted on MG‘s because the army said so.

You do not put the Elcan against your eye to fire,you WILL NOT get a pretty bad ring around your eye from it.

This post is too full of conjecture and people that don‘t know what they‘re talking about. Go to the links Michael OLeary posted. There‘s lot‘s of stuff there that will tell you ALL about it.

This thread is closed.


----------



## mattoigta (4 May 2004)

I ran across this picture on Combat Camera
 http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212004/050304/IS2004-2052a%20copy.jpg 

Now it looks like the C7A2 minus the ambidextrous Fire control Switch, but since when were these rifles issued? Are they just trialing them?


----------



## scm77 (4 May 2004)

That looks good.  Much better then some other "concept" pictures I‘ve seen where the green was much brighter.  

What kind of vertical handle doodad is that?


----------



## stukirkpatrick (4 May 2004)

Thats just a better (custom?) handgrip.  Theres one like it one some C9s to help steady your hand.


----------



## chrisf (4 May 2004)

Looks exactly the same as the one from the C9 to me...


----------



## MG34 (4 May 2004)

It IS a C9 butt grip,pretty sad when the troop have to jury rig a piece of kit that should have been issued years ago......Pretty sad indeed.


----------



## IceHawk (4 May 2004)

It is a C7A2, I‘ve mentioned this on another forum:  http://p223.ezboard.com/fcanadianpolitics11888frm4.showMessage?topicID=2370.topic 
if you guys are interested, basically they sent a few C7A2‘s over with the Vandoos to try them out.  There is also talk of a C9A2 and there are some pics in the abouve thread.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 May 2004)

You can get those foregrips off the internet as well. Many American soldiers are using them in Iraq. Some require special handguards, some don‘t it depends on the model.


----------



## AlphaCharlie (4 May 2004)

I don‘t think that grip would be that comfortable....


----------



## Murphy081 (4 May 2004)

most people just vertically grip the magazine i guess that was to substitute doing that


----------



## CI Dumaran (4 May 2004)

Meh, it‘s just vert grip fashioned with the top bolt and a plate on the lower fore grip. 

It is a little off, I wouldn‘t place it there.

To bad that isn‘t RIS.


----------



## CI Dumaran (4 May 2004)

It seems like he stuck on a pressure switch for a tac light or laser on it too.. OD Tuck tape?

Meh. Looks cool.


----------



## armyguy916 (4 May 2004)

The infantry school in Gagetown has both the C7A2 and the C9A2, I have used both of them.  The C9, major change is the barrell is drastically shorter, some people say its the ‘jump‘ version, we were told it is for FIBUA, shorter barrel, easier around corners and what not.  The presser switch is for the PAX 4 sighting system, did the trial on them a couple of months ago. It‘s an IR sighting system, used in conjuction with a helmet mounted monocular.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 May 2004)

I actually believe the switch is for his radio.. they have been issued a new, smaller radio that includes a switch for easy "hands-free"? use.. if you know what I mean.. 

Bzz


----------



## CI Dumaran (4 May 2004)

> The presser switch is for the PAX 4 sighting system, did the trial on them a couple of months ago. It‘s an IR sighting system, used in conjuction with a helmet mounted monocular.


When did they start that? Thanks for the info. Is it similar to the AN/PEQ-2? Or is it just IR only with the monocular.


Radio, Sighting System? I will go with the sighting system because of the fact that it‘s on the handle, on the rifle. 

But I‘m not to sure. The radio PTT switch is very plausible too.


----------



## armyguy916 (5 May 2004)

I‘m 99% sure that it is the PAX-4.  I have seen some weird and wonderful stuff at the infantry school, but I have never seen a smaller and ligher radio, but again, its hard to say.  They started the PAX-4 a while ago, and put a rush on it for Afghan, and an even bigger rush for 2RCR‘s deployment to Haiti, that was the final trail, the night before they left.  It‘s IR only with the monocular.  It‘s a pretty sweet piece of kit if you ask me!


----------



## mattoigta (5 May 2004)

> Originally posted by CI Phlipster:
> [qb] It is a little off, I wouldn‘t place it there.
> [/qb]


Well no ****, you place a grip like that on your PERSONAL weapon to your PERSONAL preference you goon.


----------



## CI Dumaran (5 May 2004)

:S ... so very harsh.

Back to PAX-4, Thats cool, armyguy916 thanks for the info.

Haiti you say, eh. Cool.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2004)

Flipster,
Might just be me, but your use of "Meh" is getting redundant and annoying. I‘m sure your aware, from the Urban Dictionary, it‘s definition is:

Indifference; to be used when one simply does not care.

A: What do you want for dinner? 
B: Meh.

If so, why even state an opinion? Akin to a Val Gal saying " Like I went Like to the Like Mall and Like saw this really Like cool Like dress.

Give us a bit of a break is all I‘m saying. You don‘t have to use it every second post. Besides, it took us old guys two weeks to find out what it meant.

Buzz, 
The remote for the PRR is much larger and easier to adapt than that.


----------



## Old Cent Hand (5 May 2004)

More New Kit, .........Wow.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (5 May 2004)

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/photoarchive/HiRes/%212004/050304/IS2004-2049a%20copy.jpg 

Take a look at this picture and others on the combat camera site, and you will see the new smaller radio.. I have a brochure of it sitting somewhere around my workspace.. 

Bzz


----------



## MG34 (5 May 2004)

Okay,listen up,the pressure switch is for an PAQ-4,and most likely he has the switch for his Surefire Weapons Light there as well.The PAQ-4 is the section member‘s aid to night fighting it has an IR Laser but not the visible light/laser combination of the PEQ-2.
 There is no such thing as a PAX-4 unless you are talking about the Iltis!!
 The new radio is the Marconi PRR (Personal Role Radio)it is good to go and that is all anyone here needs to know about it until they are issued with one.


----------



## armyguy916 (5 May 2004)

My apologies, my spelling between PAX-4 and PAQ-4 wasn‘t correct.  When we did the trail, it was basically "ok here is the unit, here is how you zero it, and this is how you use it."  We weren‘t told to much about the spelling of it.


----------



## MG34 (5 May 2004)

No big deal but if someone is going to post here at least get the kit right,and have a clue about what you are talking about.It just makes it that much easier to read through the topics.


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2004)

I‘ll confirm the post in Icehawk‘s link..

The development team was showing of the next generation of our weapons at 3 RCR the other day. They said they sent X number of C7A2s, new C9s, C8‘s and various other new infantry systems (including a C7 sniper rife) to Afghan with 3 Vandoo to trial in the ‘real‘ world enviroment.

Also, the initial issue to the high readiness uits is to start in a yr with issueing of wpns to the the remainder of the army to be complete in 3-5 yrs.

But then again the air force has been waiting to replace the Sea kings for how long?


----------



## Cpl Kendall (7 May 2004)

Does anybody know what the device on the magazine on Diemaco‘s website is? The website is as follows:

 http://www.diemaco.com/c7a2.htm 

Whatever it is, I don‘t recall it being on those mags before we switched to the metal ones.


----------



## leopard11 (7 May 2004)

> Originally posted by Ret 215:
> [qb] Does anybody know what the device on the magazine on Diemaco‘s website is? The website is as follows:
> 
> http://www.diemaco.com/c7a2.htm
> ...


I think i heard it being called a magpull, as to what exactly it does im not sure,

*edit* just did a search and found this "A piece of helpful gear specially designed for quick release of M-16[C7] magazines. Just install it at the base of M-16[C7] magazine and it works."


----------



## devil39 (7 May 2004)

I would say that it is a variant of one of these.  

 http://rs152.securehostserver.com/~globalta/axami/shop.php?grd=136&prd=94


----------



## Cpl Kendall (7 May 2004)

Is this "Magpul" being issued now?


----------



## Redeye (7 May 2004)

Nope, it‘s not an issue item - mags won‘t fit in the pouches with them on anyhow.


----------



## Redeye (7 May 2004)

Further, it‘s designed to make it easy to get mags out of the pouch and on to the rifle and to facilitate them being clipped onto a carabiner or something like that when removed, instead of just throwing them down the shirt.  I‘ve seen a few troops taping loops of paracord to the mags for the same purpose.

It‘s a civvie-made item you can buy from most tactical shops, the trade name is MagPul.


----------



## devil39 (7 May 2004)

Not that I have seen in some recent tours.  Some guys buy them though.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 May 2004)

The C7 pouches were always a tight fit for two mags anyways. Have they yet improved them for 3 mags and a bit ‘roomier‘, or are they still the same?

Mags pouches for the issue Australian webbing hold 3 30rd F88 Austeyr mags, and they fit with room to spare.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## scm77 (8 May 2004)

There‘s some a couple new pics of the C7A2 in the image gallery on forces.gc.ca


----------



## Doug VT (8 May 2004)

Yes, there are new radios.  They‘re the army‘s answer for the FRS Motorola‘s.  Called a PRR.  
Actually the name of the IR laser is AN/PEQ-4.  The switch on the soldiers fore-grip is not for the laser however, it‘s for the Surefire flashlight that you would see at the end of his rifle if it was all in the picture.  The battle group has the C7A2‘s and the C9A2‘s, they‘re not trialing them.  They‘re the priority, so they get them first...
Before anyone asks, that little green box hanging of the front of the vest is a IR strobe.  Not a very good one though, you have to set it up and turn it on and off from the inside.


----------



## scm77 (8 May 2004)

Anyone else notice the Arabic Pepsi?


----------



## stukirkpatrick (8 May 2004)

> The C7 pouches were always a tight fit for two mags anyways. Have they yet improved them for 3 mags and a bit ‘roomier‘, or are they still the same?


I have one of the older mag pouches, and the current 82 pattern webbing ones are the same as far as I can tell, but with the addition on the sides of small loops which you can put grenades in.

Still barely enough room for two mags though, and I found out today that can be difficult when you are quickly swapping mags on a raid


----------



## CI Dumaran (9 May 2004)

Some people use the old FN FAL mag pouches... They are shorter and a touch wider. The C7 pouch is the more slender of the two and has dividers and a pull up strap for each.
I believe that the newest one is just the C7 pouch with the nade loops and snaps buttons.
So far, they only fit 2. Unless you remove the divder? Does it allow from one more?


----------



## bossi (9 May 2004)

> Not that I have seen in some recent tours. Some guys buy them though.


I saw lots of them in Kabul.



> Some people use the old FN FAL mag pouches...


Not if you‘re issued one of the new vests.


----------



## xFusilier (9 May 2004)

> Some people use the old FN FAL mag pouches


1.  The Canadian Army has never used the FN FAL

2.  The 30 round C7 magazine, will not fit into the 20 round magazine pouches for the C1 Rifle.  Some people are issued magazine pouches for the 30 round C2 magazines, largely due to the fact that they were issued by someone who didn‘t know the difference between a C2 and a C7 magazine pouch.


----------



## D-n-A (20 May 2004)

> Originally posted by xFusilier:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Are you sure..

I believe the C1(the brits called it the L1A1) is a FN FAL, just C1 was the designation the CF gave it.

The C2 is a heavy barrel version of the C1, for use as a LMG




> Originally posted by CI Phlipster:
> [qb]newest one is just the C7 pouch with the nade loops and snaps buttons.
> So far, they only fit 2. Unless you remove the divder? Does it allow from one more? [/qb]


I got the smaller 30 round mag pouch w/ grenade holders(some of the other ones with grenade holders I‘ve seen are taller), with no divider, and only 2 magazines can fit into it.


----------



## CI Dumaran (21 May 2004)

> Originally posted by D-n-A:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


There were and are numerous CF designations C1... items range from weapons to tent covers...

Yes, I did believe that the FAL was the non-CF designation.


----------



## D-n-A (21 May 2004)

> Originally posted by CI Phlipster:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Yea, I‘m sure theres plenty of stuff with the C1 designation, so? I‘m talking about the rifle.

The company that made the FAL is Fabrique National, they called the rifle the FN FAL, Canada called it the C1, the Brits called it the L1A1, the Aussies I think called it the L1A1 too.


----------



## Da_man (21 May 2004)

what about the cleaning kit?


----------



## smgcon (26 May 2004)

The FN FAL is the metric rifle on which Canada based the FN C1.  The C1 and later C1A1 is an inch pattern file, like the British and Australian L1 rifles.  Canada developed the rifles at Canadian Arsenals Ltd, and the British and Australian rifles adopted many of the Canadian refinements. Canadian Arsenals was closed by the Government not long after delivering the last C1A1 rifles.


----------



## Scratch_043 (27 May 2004)

Does anyone know the Product number/serial designation for the new PRR radio systems?


----------



## CI Dumaran (27 May 2004)

Ahh, that cleared a lot up thanks Gaucher.


----------



## Redeye (29 May 2004)

> Originally posted by CI Phlipster:
> [qb] Some people use the old FN FAL mag pouches... They are shorter and a touch wider. The C7 pouch is the more slender of the two and has dividers and a pull up strap for each.
> I believe that the newest one is just the C7 pouch with the nade loops and snaps buttons.
> So far, they only fit 2. Unless you remove the divder? Does it allow from one more? [/qb]


The pouches with the dividers are old -  at any opportunity most people swap them for the newer pouches which don‘t have the silly divider, and have grenade loops.  There has never, that I know of, been a conscious effort to ensure they all get replaced, but most troops in my unit have gotten rid of the old ones.

My biggest gripe is that there is no easy way to close them quickly on an attack or the like, and it leads to a greater risk of loosing a mag.  The new TV addresses this with the Fastex and velcro combination - hopefully before too long they‘ll be in general use throughout the CF.

By the way, FAL = Fusil Automatique Légère, which was Fabrique Nationale‘s term for the rifle.  The C1 and C2 were licensed product-improved variants, just as the C7 is of the M16.


----------



## CI Dumaran (29 May 2004)

I prefer the good‘ol strap and buckle to velcro which was loud... I‘m sure someone has put fastex clips on an old mag pouch.


----------



## armyguy916 (2 Jun 2004)

Vigilant,
You might want to time your C7 the next time you fire a full mag on auto, or even ready the C7 PAM because you will see that the time for the complete unload of a 30 round mag downrange on full auto is around 4.5 seconds.


----------



## BDTyre (2 Jun 2004)

Full automatic fire from a weapon works great when you have a stationary weapon and are facing a charge line from the enemy.   Think trench warfare situation, or storming a beach.   People realized the usefulness of a fully automatic weapon in these situations and hence have changed tactics to avoid letting the enemy gain this advantage.

I should also add that the Americans liked full automatic in Vietnam where they would do recon-by-fire: squads or even platoons would fire full auto into treelines or bushes and hope they hit the enemy.  They would advance forward (I believe by section) while this was going on, using grenades in addtion to wide-coverage rifle and machine gun fire, trying to kill the enemy or flush him out.  (It usually didn't work).


----------



## Military Brat (2 Jun 2004)

The official DND website states that the C7A1 Assault Rifle can discharge 740 to 900 rounds per minute, so that means that at best it could discharge a magazine in 2 second flat and at worse it could discharge a magazine at just over 2.4 seconds. No? Maybe my math is wrong.

Anyways, I think, as long as the troops are disciplined enough not to empty a mag downrange in the opening seconds of a firefight, the ability to empty a mag with one pull of the trigger can't be a bad thing. It would probably have to be used very rarely, but at least troops would have the option in their bag of tricks if the need ever arose.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (2 Jun 2004)

Let's not go off topic here... we're all familiar with Canadian (and American) manners already.


----------



## armyguy916 (2 Jun 2004)

Military Brat, your math is completely right, I agree with you, but last year on my 2A course when we were doing the small arms coaching portion, that was the figure we were given.  The rate that the website gives is true, but you have to take into consideration many variables including changing a mag, which takes a few seconds, but oh well.  I'm not gonna get into a 'screaming' match of posting back and forth, its pointless, just count the next time you have the chance to do that.  I agree with the post that stated we should be more disciplined to be doing that anyways.  Waste of ammo, and we aren't gonna hit anything.  Which is why I would rather be on the end of the C6, firing rounds   :fifty:


----------



## atticus (4 Jun 2004)

I read a newspaper article awhile back that stated that the US army did have trouble with soldiers emptying their magazines in one burst and thats why they switched over to the 3 bullet burst.
I just looked at my papers I got on the C7A1 rifle from reserve bmq and it states that it will empty the mag in 2.1 seconds.
Just a side question: does the british SA80 have full automatic fire or three bullet burst?


----------



## chriscalow (4 Jun 2004)

Has anyone out there heard of an "Aussie peelback"?  (I think thats what it's called), you do it when your trying to break contact with the enemy while keeping their heads down.  I only heard of it once (from a reservist), and never since.  But it sounded like it would work great.  Maybe someone out there could explain it better than I can, so I'll let them before I try.  The reason I ask is because I was led to believe that you use full auto.


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Jun 2004)

There are many different lines of thought on the "aussie peelback".  Some people swear by it, others think it's a waste of time and ammo.  It's employed usually as an immediate reaction to either the front man setting off a trip-flare, or walking into heavy fire (which is basically the same thing anyway:  trip-flares are "always" covered by machinegun fire).  The idea is to put as much ammo down range as possible while the patrol peels backwards in order to keep the enemy's heads down and discourage them from following.  Might seem like a good idea, but, depending on how many enemy are on the other end, and what type of weapons they're using, you may be better off just running away as fast as your legs will take you.

As for the other speculation on what full auto is good for:  Canadian doctrine for FIBUA (OBUA) used to be that when entering a room you'd throw in a granade, wait for it to detonate, then 2 men would immediately enter and empty their magazines into the room.  Due to the fact that on most of the recent missions, troops have had to clear rooms/buildings which may be full of civilians, we are no longer supposed to do that.  However, it IS much more effective/safer than going in with a flashbang and trying to doubletap whoever pops up before they have a chance to pump a few rounds into you.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jun 2004)

Atticcus wrote:

*Just a side question: does the british SA80 have full automatic fire or three bullet burst?*
Single and full auto are the modes of fire for the L85.


----------



## Goober (5 Jun 2004)

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.


----------



## Redeye (5 Jun 2004)

Goober said:
			
		

> 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 (5 Jun 2004)

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 (5 Jun 2004)

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 (5 Jun 2004)

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 (5 Jun 2004)

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 (5 Jun 2004)

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 (5 Jun 2004)

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


----------



## Smoothbore (6 Jun 2004)

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 (6 Jun 2004)

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 (6 Jun 2004)

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


----------



## Goober (6 Jun 2004)

Smoothbore said:
			
		

> 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 (6 Jun 2004)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

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



Wow great thread!


----------



## Farmboy (6 Jun 2004)

> 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 (6 Jun 2004)

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 (6 Jun 2004)

If only we could take our own eh?


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jun 2004)

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


----------



## Farmboy (7 Jun 2004)

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 (17 Jun 2004)

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 (17 Jun 2004)

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 (17 Jun 2004)

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  :-\


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Jun 2004)

Aussie Peelback? Never heard of that one, but lesson learned folks, we fought the Japs from 42-45, fought in Borneo, and Malaya in the 50s and 60s, Viet Nam 62-73, and in East Timor 99-now. Thats a lot of time in the 'J', but I have to confess, after almost 10 yrs svc heer in Australia, I never heard of that term of Aussie Peelback .

The casing deflector on the M16A2 was on the original US trial version by Colt back in 1980-82. Canada just adopted it. The 3rd burst has its advantages, as it allows for better control whn firing bursts. Its effective.

Colt offers the M16A2 with or without burst control. The USMC and US Army have the 3rd burst control, along with the windage and elevation type rear sight. Colt can offer both types of rear sights too.  :gunner:

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Enzo (17 Jun 2004)

On full auto, my C7 was basically uncontrollable. From the hip :gunner:, more control, but God knows where those rounds would go. From the shoulder, nope. I'd try different combinations of hand placement, shoulder strap use, etc. First couple on target and the rest, up and to the right, every time. I'm a fair size guy (6'4" 190 at the time) and I just kept thinking, how'd those guys control this thing when you watch Vietnam video (bearing in mind, different ammunition and rifle) but still. This is when I'd stand at >10m and go through a full mag. Bursting (3-6 +/-) was much more controllable. As it was explained to me, full auto was a measure of last resort (camp penetration) and you didn't really worry about your groupings as much as you wanted to drop the other player and make certain he stayed down. So, I don't know if 3rd burst is a bad thing? I don't have a problem with repeated trigger pull. As long as I have the ammunition.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Jun 2004)

On the basic (NSN 1005 66 130 1425) Austeyr F88 5.56mm rifle, it has a thing called a single shot lockout located underneath the trigger, and its like a button which moves up and down to lock the rifle for semi auto only. A good trg tool for new soldiers, and can be used as required otherwise. This generic to the Australian rilfe only, but the design was also picked up by Ireland too, so I am told. The ADI made rifle supplied to NZ for example uses a 3 position safety, S-R-and A. However the original Austrian STG77/ AUG uses the two stage trigger set up.

You see to fire on 'auto' on the ADI F88 Aussie version, its a two stage trigger pull, meaning the first pressure at about 4-6 lbs is SA, and the second pressure at about 11 lbs is full auto. Like the German WW2 7.92 x 57mm belt fed MG34 sorta.

So the F88 takes some time to get used to. Australia trains for good battle shots, and rarely on range shoots except jungle lanes do we fire on auto, and even then incontrolled short bursts.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Enzo (18 Jun 2004)

I've yet to experiment with a "bullpup" and I'm very curious about it. I like the Steyr's, but from what I've read the French FAMAS is an excellent 5.56. It's all academic however, my personal Olympic Arms CAR/15 is semi-automatic only and my groupings with it are nice and tight. So it's seems I've spent most of my time with the C7/M-16 family; so once again, what you use eh?

Curious about the new C7A2.


----------



## tacsit (20 Jun 2004)

I just skimmed through these threads. Some interesting thoughts on various topics here.

WRT the Aussie Peelback (which I believe was created by the Aussie SAS in Borneo or Vietnam, hence the name), those who think it's a waste of time are morons. Pure and simple. When people are shooting at you, you do not just run away, that is what gets your people killed. You and your mates put down boat loads of fire and toss several frags and smokes to supress the enemy so you can get the hell out of there. Rifle platoons are rarely if ever going to peelback. Small patrols however, are the majority of the time going to do that because they are just that, small. If you have not supressed the enemy then when you get up to run he will shoot your sorry ass. As another board member stated, there are many variations of it. To each their own. The only thing I will say is that if it's contact front (that includes front left and front right), then every member of the patrol should take a step off the trail left and right alternating so there is a corridor down the middle for the patrol members to run down. If it's contact front and you have the troops run down either the left or right side of the patrol and some bad guys pop up on the sides during the action, you will have a KIA from friendly fire. My section commander during my BMQ a few years ago taught the peelback this latter way, and when I tried to point out to him how that places undue risk to the patrol members I was quickly silenced. Being a recruit obviously I had no clue what I was talking about  :.

Which leads me to my next point. Those statistics, such as, "US pers. expended XXX number of rounds for each enemy soldier killed." Think about it for a second. What is the majority of our fire used for days? Let's say it together class: supressive fire. So really I don't find it odd at all to have a section expend close to a thousand rounds trying to kill two guys in a trench.

WRT rifles that fire large calibre rounds (i.e. 7.62). Those are called battle rifles. Rifles such as the AR family of weapons, SA80, etc. are called assault rifles. Proper terminology is important for the sake of accurate debate. Yes, 7.62 does have better wounding characteristics than 5.56, but the ammunition is also heavier and bigger (so you cannot carry as much of it). And believe me, you need a lot of ammunition these days (for extended battles like in Somalia, 1993, or to suppress the enemies from time to time; try carrying 10-12 mags of 7.62) As well, battle rifles are typically heavier as well. Try putting on a PEQ-2, Surefire light, scope, etc. on an M14 and come tell me what it adds up to. I think you'll be pretty shocked, and if you aren't, well, you're glad to try humping that beast up and down a mountain for a day and tell me whether you want to stick with it or switch to an M4 or C7A2.

WRT full auto capability vs. 3rnd burst. I've also heard that 3rnd burst was stipulated due to the rate of expenditure of ammunition by US troops in the Vietnam war. It is, however, a capability which should not be in place on an assault rifle. Proper training and trigger control is what needs to be fostered, not an articial constraint. The 3rd burst mechanism in the M16A2 and M16A4 does not have a memory. If you fire a burst and you only have 2 rnds left in your magazine, then change mags and pull the trigger, your weapon will fire only 1 rnd from the newly loaded magazine to complete the burst cycle. Full auto is required to clear trenches still, in some OBUA situations, in the defensive, and to suppress the enemy in certain situations. Obviously you do not fire more than a 2-5 rnd burst from your rifle at ranges more than a few meters away. So to use the excuse that it is wholly inaccurate during long bursts at range as an argument that full auto capability isn't required is a tad foolish. There's a reason US SOF use the full auto capable M4A1 and 22 SAS has switched to the full auto capabile C8 SFW from the M16A2.

Finally, WRT bullpup weapons, the AR family of weapons has a casing deflector. Bullpup weapons have no such feature, and thus if you try to do a cross-shoulder transition with a bullpup weapon be prepared to eat a face full of brass and then get shot while you're dealing with that.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

The Austeyr and French FAMAS can be quickly changed for left handed shooters. So no need for any cheeck biting incidents.

Firstly the F88 Austeyr. The rifle has ejection ports on both sides, which can be easily converted over. One is always covered. Then a left handed bolt is used, quicky headspaced (37.41mm HS gauge for you EME armourers out there) by and Armourer, and its done. The EPCs are siliconed in to prevent any cheek nipping by the gun lock assembly should the EPC come loose and be lost.

The French FAMAS is even more simple. A soldier switches the extractor on the bolt to left handed. If memory serves me correctly, as I have not handled and fired one for quite a while, the EPC too is easily converted.

Its only a matter of a few minutes in your in business. However the Malaysian SME AUG is different in you must have a complete left handed butt assembly for Left handed shooters. Their weapons dont even have the provison for an Ejection Port Cover at all.

As for ammo wise, personally I would much rather have twice the ammount ammo and full auto (5.56mm vs 7.62mm NATO ). I have full confidence in the 5.56mm SS109 bullet, and its punch it delivers to the EN. 

Steel helmets (US M1) and frag jackets were penetrated at  800metres with the SS109,where the US M193 just dented the helmets in did not go thru the levlar jackets of the day (1981). So, fear naught, and have confidence in your ammo and eqpt!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

still cant edit - its kevlar, and I know its supposed to be a k, not an L  - cheers, wes


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

Little off of your rifle chat.....

There is NO weapon comparable to the H'n K MP5.....limosine of the smg's.....


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

True Rope, we use em here in many different configurations (SF use), and we at one time had 7.62mm PSG-1s, some even with a poloroid cam to catch 'the long distance connection'.

SMGs do have a purpose, but the 9mm just has no guts (punch) and must be backed up by larger calibre wpns. Of the SMGs I have seen and fired (and there's been a few) the HK MP5 FOW is the RR of them all.  :gunner:

They'll be around for a long time, unlike the Uzi's and Sterlings, STENS, etc which are all but gone now.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Jun 2004)

Agreed Wes the MP5 is the premier smg in the world and has its niche role but it could never full the role of sniper rifles and assault rifles. It should be used to its fullest in the role it was made for. Hmmmm for those who advocate niche roles for the CF I think you can draw conclusions from this; if you can't niche roles cannot take the place of what you chop.


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

Agreed there EX but I tell you what if It was me and you in a dark alley with 20 yards between us I could put out your eyes with an MP5. Thats the role it was designed for. Close and personal. It has no place in land warfare besides the police application it was made for.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

An advance to the 'bull pup' design is you get the shortness (the overall length) of a submachine gun (with stock extended), as this comes in handy for anywhere SMG length is appreciated (AFV crews for example) along with the 30rd mag capacity, and the overwhelming range, accuracy, and punch delivered say by the L85A2 (SA80), FAMAS, and the AUG (F88 FOW).

For the lay people, did you now that the 9 x 19mm MP5 fires from a closed bolt  (using the same delayed blowback as the HK33, and G3, PSG-1, and the French FAMAS), and has the same ROF (rate of fire) has the M16A1 rifle! 

Traditionally, a 'SMG' fires from an open bolt (PPSH41 [7.62 x 25mm], MP38 & 40, STEN, Sterling, MPK and MPL, Uzi, F1, [all which have the common denominator, the 9 x 19mm ctg, the most universal SMG ctg ever] etc).

Freaky facts: The Sterling mags (10rd, 30rd and 34rd fit in the Australian F1. Even 32rd STEN Mags fit in a Sterling, but Sterling mags dont fit in STENs (go figure).

Sterling facts: The UK Sterling (not the suppressed L34A1) takes the No5 Jungle Carbine bayonet, while the Cdn C1 Sterling, and the Aussie F1 take the C1/L1 bayonet. Although both the UK and Cdn SMGs are based on the same design there is many differences. The UK SMG uses a two piece bolt, the Cdn one piece, the UK and Cdn SMGs have entirely different trigger mechs (but interchange as complete components), and the front sight of the Cdn C1 SMG  is the same as the FN C1A1 rifle, which includes the zeroing screw (also found on the C1 arctic trigger and the C2 front sight ears). 

Good ole SMG trivia.

Open bolt SMGs actually fire the ctg before it is entirley chambered, I believe this is called pre-ignation if i remember from armourer terminology.

Anyways, enough of my techo wierdness for tonight.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

What I like about the MP5 is its simplicity its soldier proof.

Out of rounds? Lock the action back and change the clip slap the release and fire away.

OOPS!!!

Weapon on safe : then lock the action to rear........

 :threat:= the RSO if he heard that......


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

MP5s are also used by the RAN along with 12ga Rem 870Ps and LM-500 series SGs in their bording parties (also F88s too). The RAN has been very active in the waters off of Iraq. Plenty of work there for the next 100 yrs.

Rope, you are up late ort early! Just after 2040 here on the shortest day of the yr (or longest night) here on a Monday evening, which makes it anywhere from 0240 to 0540 Monday morning depending on where ya are in the dear ole land of the maple leaf.

Anyways I am off to the TV for the night.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

Say EX you sound like you know your way around a Tub.......why do we have C9's on ship? I learned em' now all I do is clean 'em. I cant think of a use for them.....nice little piece of kit though.....


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

I was on the HMAS Manoora (do a search for her). She is old (1960s) and a former USN ship which the RAN bought and re-fitted. I was not a part of her company, but just on briefly.

The RAN  kitted her out with 12.7 x99mm M2 HBs, Minimis, etc, and carry an Army detachment when deployed.

I was also in the Mess on the HMCS Fraser back in 94 in Halifax too. I was legless after spending less than 10 bucks, as the Coke was more expensive than the rum. I wonder what ever happened to her as she was getting paid off soon. The Russian Navy's Cruiser Ustinov was also there, and the group of us had adopted a couple of Russian sailors and had a party for em at a mates place in Lower Sackville. That was another long day. BTW the Russian ships were the first to enter Halifax in years.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

The STENNIS carrier came in on friday. Those carriers are something else. Quite the spectacle. Flight deck is 1000ft long. I know this is Off topic but I was impressed......until the American sailors hit the town and started drinking Canadian beer....hen poor down town Vic was a warzone......


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Jun 2004)

Although we do not use the C9s a lot, they are an effective weapon to have availble when we are maneuvering in enclosed waters, mounting them on rare occassions on the RHIB for covering boarding ops (only saw that once) and in the event we are involved in landing on a hostiile or potential hostile shore for operations such as evacuating of refugees. A c9 can be a great equalizer for the NLBP equipped with C7s/MP5s and maybe out of range of the ships guns and is light enough not to weigh anyone down and take up too much room.

Wes...one of my first big trips in the navy was to Russian and to this day I think it was the best trip I ever went on. It really changed my views and opinions of the Russian people. I'd go back in a heartbeat, one of the few places that I would never get sick of.


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

EX have you ever seen the marines with the .50 cals mounted on their RHIBS? Thats an intimidating little boat...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Jun 2004)

Seen M60s never seen a .50 and I imagine the M240 will be mounted on atheir RHIBs soon enough.


----------



## NavyGrunt (21 Jun 2004)

I heard the CF is playing around with different configs for port security as well......im done hijaking this thread....


----------



## Farmboy (21 Jun 2004)

> Yes, 7.62 does have better wounding characteristics than 5.56, but the ammunition is also heavier and bigger (so you cannot carry as much of it). And believe me, you need a lot of ammunition these days (for extended battles like in Somalia, 1993, or to suppress the enemies from time to time; try carrying 10-12 mags of 7.62) As well, battle rifles are typically heavier as well. Try putting on a PEQ-2, Surefire light, scope, etc. on an M14 and come tell me what it adds up to. I think you'll be pretty shocked,



 Why carry more ammo?   Because you need more of .223  to actually kill.

Why did they expend so much ammo?  Spray and pray.

My one civie rifle wieghs 13lbs and I carry it around quite a bit. M1A/M14 over C7?  Hell ya!


----------



## tacsit (21 Jun 2004)

Wesley, I don't think you understand. A cross shoulder transition is a technique you use in a firefight whereby you're switching the weapon to the opposite shoulder while pieing or shooting around a corner to minimize the amount of your body that you are presenting to the enemy. There is no way in a firefight any sane individual would open up their weapon to switch about the bolt or whatnot. With the AR family you just transition to the other shoulder, do your business, and transition back, no need to fiddle with the weapon at all. While you're busy switching about the internals of your bullpup the bad guy will come up and shoot you (not to mention that while that's going on your focus is on your weapon when it should be on the fight.

Farmboy, you don't carry more ammo because you need more .223 to kill, but because military ressuply is often few and far between in wartime. Troops these days do not expend so much ammo. If any of my Yank friends did that their senior NCOs or officers would smack them. Does your civvy rifle have an MWS system, along with IR laser, tactical light, scope, etc.? You say you carry it around quite a bit. What to you constitues a bit? Have you carried it while humping a 90lbs rucksack and FFO weighing about 50-60lbs in mountanous terrain, or with little sleep the previous night? Or have you used it in a OBUA environment or during an assault? Assault rifles do the job and do the job well enough. The gains in ballistic capability brought about by battle rifles are offset by their weight, bulk, length, and weight of ammo. The designated marksman concept is being revived in some circles (and in fact is being practiced by several US units) and that in my opinion is the only place where battle rifles belong on the battlefield outside of other specialized roles.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

Yip, I  did not 'RTFQ' . Sorry. Af for this tehnique,  to the best of my knowledge is not done down here.

Cheers,

WEs


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jun 2004)

I did a search for 'aussie peelback' on google, and only 2 Cdn' threads' came up. I'll speak to a few friends at 4RAR (Cdo) to see what this is called here as its 0430 here, as I cant sleep with this silly cracked rib    I have inherited recently.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Farmboy (21 Jun 2004)

MWS?   No it does not have a laser or a light on it, although it does have a heavy base, rings and a big ass scope along with bipod and a hefty McMillan stock, it's an evil "sniper" rifle.  >



> Have you carried it while humping a 90lbs rucksack and FFO weighing about 50-60lbs in mountanous terrain, or with little sleep the previous night?



 Yeah, it's called moose hunting  ;D only for 12 days though. 

You bring up an interesting point though about the desginated marksman/ sniper. Personaly I think every unit should have a few guys who are trained snipers. For example a 7 car amoured recce troop should have a "sniper team" with at least one rifle carried with them.


----------



## excoelis (22 Jun 2004)

> Personaly I think every unit should have a few guys who are trained snipers. For example a 7 car amoured recce troop should have a "sniper team" with at least one rifle carried with them.



Do you have any idea how ambitious that idea is?

Who is gunna train all these snipers?

We can't even keep up with the attrition where we need it most.


----------



## Enzo (22 Jun 2004)

The H&K MP5 is considered the premiere submachine gun, but I'm very curious to spend some time on the range in the future with the newer H&K UMP in either .40S&W or .45ACP. I concur w/ Wes, 9mm isn't my first choice; ce la vie.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

> Do you have any idea how ambitious that idea is?
> 
> I just watched a complete Light Infantry Bn's worth of sniper resources brought to bear in order to qualify one successful sniper candidate.
> 
> ...



Thanks Excoelis; I was going to bring that point up, but I knew it would be better for the kid to hear it from the "horses-mouth", so to say.

For some reason, people seem to believe it is only a matter of willing it so to sum up snipers, airborne regiments, and pathfinders.


----------



## Farmboy (22 Jun 2004)

Yes I realize how ambitious an idea it is, and how long it would take to impliment.

Just like saying money for the CF is an ambitious idea.

 We can all keep our mouths shut and just go along or we can offer ideas that might make the force more effective. Yes most ideas will never see the light of day however none, will if there are no ideas.

 Or maybe I'll just keep quiet and go back to playing with my GI Joes.


----------



## Enzo (22 Jun 2004)

My Barbies can kick your GI Joes asses ;D


----------



## Infanteer (22 Jun 2004)

Anyone heard anything about the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan having a "designated marksmen" at the squad or platoon level?   I understood they reissued M-14's for this role.

I've heard of this idea being proposed for use in Canadian Infantry units.  The "Marksman" cadre would be in Pltn HQ and under the tutelage of the battalion snipers.


----------



## excoelis (22 Jun 2004)

Sarcasm is a fool's wit.

Obviously, discussing this......like for the sake of argument.........the merits of designated marksmen/sharpshooters as an interim measure to your perceived endstate, would be a total waste of time.

Over and out to you, Farmboy.


----------



## excoelis (22 Jun 2004)

Ahhhh.......Infanteer you are a breath of fresh air.  You posted your latest as I was composing my last message, and was of the thought that things where going south.

Last tour in Afghanistan I did just that.

As our AO was predominantly OBUA, we had tailored our weapons systems accordingly.  To compensate for the lessened long-range capability, several contingencies where put in place.  One of which was to designate a marksman at platoon level and employ him in my platoon weapons det.  Although not a qualified sniper(yet), he had outstanding musketry skills, in part due to his extensive rifle team experience.  I even worked it out so he could have his 'tricked out' competition wpn brought along - vice the normal one on the CQs books.


----------



## Farmboy (22 Jun 2004)

Sarcasm is used to point out how stupid an argument is that was brought up by the other.

You poo poo me and then continue conversing about a idea I brought up.   :

 To help your conversation along, the French do somthing like this already.  :sniper:


----------



## devil39 (22 Jun 2004)

Farmboy,

You had an idea, though perhaps not a very practical idea.

When your idea gets shot down by some people who should know the facts, take it like a man.  If you wish to argue then please argue reason.

You are a civilian shooter, and a Pte (Armd) sldr, and likely good at both.  I doubt you understand the complexity and the training requirements of the CF sniper (I may be wrong).


----------



## tacsit (23 Jun 2004)

A designated marksman is not a sniper. Full stop. It would be a complete waste of a sniper's ability to put him in a DM role, and a complete waste of time and money to train DMs to a sniper standard. A DM is a soldier with excellent rifle skills given a weapon that is tailored to the DM role (i.e. the M14). As I said before the practice of using DMs has taken hold in certain US units. I know for a fact it has been used by the 82nd ABN in both Astan and Iraq, don't know about other units and I don't know how they're organized within the TO. Placing the DM in the wpns det strikes me as a good idea. That provides the platoon commander with a precision instrument to use at range compared to the machine guns. As well he could loan out the DM to a section for a patrol or specific tasking. Flexibility is key here, and I see nothing wrong with keeping a DM in the wpns det on paper as long as the plt. cmdr. understands that is not a TO cage to keep him in. I do know that the DM concept has been bandied about in the CF, but as I know nothing about that or what's been discussed about that specifically I will refrain from making any commentary on that which I know nothing about.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2004)

> Sarcasm is used to point out how stupid an argument is that was brought up by the other.
> 
> You poo poo me and then continue conversing about a idea I brought up.



As has already been pointed out it's apples and oranges, I'd suggest using a little more tact in your approach.

Better put your Field Marshal baton away and let Excoelis carry the discussion, as he is the SME here (if you haven't noticed).


----------



## excoelis (23 Jun 2004)

If ya'll haven't figured it out yet, I'm not about to waste effort arguing with those that will digress to compensate for lack of knowledge.

Infanteer, I am not an SME of anything.  

I will however answer any questions, or make an effort to get the answers to legitimate questions, should they fall within my area of expertise.  I may speculate at times, and I may even be in a foul mood and entertain the trolls a little - I'm only human after all.

So, if anyone wants to have a mature and informed discussion, see ya around the board.

p.s.  For those of you that are less experienced or civilians:  Believe it or not I'm here FOR you.  If I wanted to shoot the shit with people who understood everything I was saying,  I would do that at work.  As I've stated before, I'm not here to stroke my own ego, I'm here to try and make even a slight difference with the young up-and-comers and prospective recruits.

Knowlege is power - but you can't receive it if you are stuck on permanent send


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2004)

Well said and an excellent point excoelis.


----------



## Farmboy (23 Jun 2004)

When I said "sniper team" I did not mean a fully trained sniper/spotter, because yes that would take huge resourses and time and the end result would be a waste. Yes I do understand the complexity, time, money ect. that go into the training.

 Desinated marksman seems to be the correct term, so I will use it. Some one who can have a "sniper" rifle included in their kit that knows how to use it effectively, and if possible some one who can assist in seeing splash if need be (although not needed).

 There are many soldiers in the CF who can be used in this role. However the problem being, like everything, is the higher ups knowing how to use it and implement it effectively, and money to outfit everyone of these soldiers/troops/units with a rifle. For some reason I don't see everyone being allowed to bring their own comp. rifles.

My apologies to those offended by my quick rash comments above, and next time I will try to be clearer and more thoughtfull.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2004)

Well, I think we have settled any discrepancies on this forum.

Excoelis, you're experience with the matter of discussion and such makes soldiers like you and Jungle authorities on this forum to some extent; sorry if the term SME seemed to conotate something else  

Now, as for the discussion.

I take it the DM was a bit of a success on APOLLO.  Is there any talk about moving this idea to a more formal level such as including in the TO&E of the new light infantry battalions that are being bandied about.  Besides the obvious tactical advantages these can bring to a platoon I see it as an excellent opportunity to promote excellence in marksmanship within the CF, a "high-speed" position within the platoon that can encourage others to work on their shooting skills.

As well, are these guys normally taking souped up rifles with match ammo when they go out, or are we giving DMs something that can merely "reach out and touch someone" a little bit further away.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2004)

Would the DM be using a 7.62 or a service C7? If they do start to see more use in the CF maybe we shoould look at the 6.8mm variant of the M16 to fill this role.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jun 2004)

Thinking out loud here but would a re conditioned FNC1 fill this role (designated marksman) or would something else be desired?


----------



## tacsit (23 Jun 2004)

DMs are not supposed to be issued sniper rifles. Again, they are not trained to the level required to fully make use of an SWS. Rather they should be given accurized rifles, nothing more. Something along the lines of what the IDF does is fine: an M16A2 w/heavier barrel, multi-power optical sight (certainly more than the 3.5x of the Elcan; a shitty sight if I ever saw one), and a bipod. I personally believe DMs should be issued with a rifle in 7.62. What seems to me to fit the bill for this role is the SR-25, manufactured by Knights Armament Corporation. Designed to shoot 1 minute-of-angle groups at 600 yards, I think this is a perfect DM rifle. It has, in fact, been adopted by USNAVSPECWAR for issue to the teams and given the designation mk.11 mod.0. It has good parts commonality with the AR family of weapons and thus training requirements and maintenance outsourcing would not be a problem. Of course, I think an accurized M14 would do the job just fine as well.


----------



## excoelis (23 Jun 2004)

http://www.diemaco.com/

I'm not sure how far towards the opsec/persec line we are going here, so I will err on the side of caution and stick to generalizing.

Firstly, I'm not a sniper - I've had my share of good go's, so I understood when they chased me out of the office waving my 490A (MPRR) at me  ;D

They are just really cool guys and I like to hang around with them :

My unqualified observations:

Keep commonality of types of ammo on the battlefield.  'Better to have and need not - than to need and have not'.  Compensate for match grade or 'better' caliber ammo by using better wpns and better trained marksmen.  If we adopt a new or 'old' wpn system that is incongruent with the current family of weapons, how do we sustain the operators in the field.  Kit gets broke.  Resupply needs to be as simple as possible.  Common parts = logistically simple.  Gun-plumbers and operators need to be trained and intimately familiar with the kit your using - it's your life after all.

A Master Sniper put it to me this way:

Paraphrase: "Using .300 win mag or .338 Lapua is great - but there is nothing better than being able to grab some 5.56 or 7.62 off the troops you are supporting when the shit really hits the fan and you run out of fancy stuff".  
Not as accurate perhaps, but it will still kill people really far away if placed in the right hands.

I guess in context 'driving nails' is great on the range.  'In the shit' we have to consider all the 'ilitys'  ??? - like mobility, flexibility, sustainability, interoperability, etc.................


The other issue is the sniper/marksman thing.  Like has been stated previously, they are totally different animals(well..... most of them are animals)    Not just for reasons of equipment, training, or skill sets.  Understand that employment is at totally different levels.  A DM will be at the disposal of the sect, platoon, or maybe coy.  A sniper is employed at Bn or higher level - or coy if they are the ME........well, enough semantics, you get the picture.   Suffice to say that a CO will not give up his snipers to a platoon comd and conversely, a platoon comd will probably not be asked for his marksmen in support of higher level ops.

Anyway, before I start flapping my gums well beyond my purview, I will sum up.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this area can run with the ball?

Jungle?


----------



## Farmboy (23 Jun 2004)

> Designed to shoot 1 minute-of-angle groups at 600 yards



To clarify, that's a 6 inch group. 1moa = 1inch at 100yds, 2 inches at 200yds ect. 

 How would DMs be selected? Would it just be by scores at the range?


----------



## tacsit (24 Jun 2004)

excoelis, I agree with you on parts and ammo commonality, which is why the SR-25 looks quite appealing. Parts commonality with current in-service weapons, and link for the C6s can be broken down and given to the DMs in a pinch.


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Jun 2004)

The Aussie contract SR25s (Rifle Mk blabla, Mod 0) come in a waterproof Pellican' black case. The rifle is really nice, and is basically an upgraded version of a 7.62mm NATO AR10, but SA only with many parts compatable with the M16FOW. Even the sling is leather, like the WW2 M1 Garand type.

In short, a nice piece of kit!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Dave 514 (25 Jun 2004)

Hi:
I'm a new member of this august group. therefore a little background is necessary. I'm an American living in Scottsdale AZ. My father was English my mother French Canadian. My family is somewhat connected to the CF by way of my 4 greatsgrandfather who built Ft. Carillon and my great uncle who was the third man to join the NWMP and founded and was the first CO of the Ld SH . My own background is that I've been a pistol shooter since 1959 though I've fired many other weapons including the M16 though not the C7.

First of all my comments concern the basic design of the M16.Any weapon that needs a bolt assist says a lot about its basic design and should be relegated to the garbage heap immediately. ( I know why it was put there... to cover up the ignorance of the US Army knowledge of the difference between stick and ball powder.)

Secondly, I'm sure that the C7 has improved on the shortcomings of the M16.

Third regarding the Burst vs the Spray and Pray. Certainly the the recoil and controlability in S and P mode is easily mastered if the US would only learn and teach their troops properly and therefore obviate the necessity of putting on the Burst control q.v. quickshoot.com. 
Respectfully,

David


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2004)

> First of all my comments concern the basic design of the M16.Any weapon that needs a bolt assist says a lot about its basic design and should be relegated to the garbage heap immediately. ( I know why it was put there... to cover up the ignorance of the US Army knowledge of the difference between stick and ball powder.)



Well, its popularity among many of the world's militaries would seen to indicate that perhaps relegating it to the "garbage heap immediately" would be a hasty decison.



> Third regarding the Burst vs the Spray and Pray. Certainly the the recoil and controlability in S and P mode is easily mastered if the US would only learn and teach their troops properly and therefore obviate the necessity of putting on the Burst control q.v. quickshoot.com.



It's funny, I remember the British Para from CQB saying that they were always making fun of American's for using the "spray and pray" technique.  He goes on to comment that when they got into it heavy in the Falklands, alot of British Paras were doing the same thing.  I have a feeling that green troops seeing the elephant for the first time may be just as important as training in determining how well a soldier controls his aim and rate of fire in combat.


----------



## Dave 514 (25 Jun 2004)

Infanteer:
The Snider rifle was popular as was the Martini , the rifle of course, but that doesn't make them good rifles.  Imagine being told that the rifle needs a bolt assist and you have the fines trifle in the worls ...give me a break!

No matter who uses S and P mode this is due to the lack of proper training  including FoOF.
Respectfully,

David

P.S. check quickshoot.com


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2004)

Well after wading through 7 pages...

 DM's - the is still a question of exaclty what sort of 'course' the DM will take and questions remain about selection.  There also exists a struggle between the C7CT and AR10 (when Diemaco realises the right of first refusal can get the Mk11 Mod0 in - providing we dump the 24" bbl spec...) as for the position of the MRS (Marksman Rifle System). Right now units going overseas are using the Wpn Det as the hosting area for the DM - as he trails around with the Pl Comd and basically shoots tgt's the Lt/Capt think need to be shot.  However in the ORBAT's there is of yet no room for a DM so the OC/Pl Comd have to make the call to fit him in - by losing a position in the PL.  As TACSIT stated the DM's are not snipers - the roles are entirely seperate and the kit to do it is different too.  The bare bones DM will have a little bit better understand of the ROE and be an above avergae shooter - who hopefully has the inteligence to be able to work the variable scope on the weapon... 

On 5.56mm wound balistics  go read http://www.ammo-oracle.com/ it is the best open source ammuntion document available.  

The M16 family (including the C7 subgroups) - the bolt assist - well the M14 has one too -> the charging handle unlike the M16 the M14's CH is reciprocating being attahced to the bolt and all that.

I disagree that the Armoured need a DM at all.  If they are doing OP's where they need 031 skills - they should get 031's to do the jobs required.


The biggest problems right now is that the MRS guns (both the AR10T's and the C7CT's) are OP usage only - which gets into a steep learning curve if all of a sudden troops are tossed into a role they have not been able to train for.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jun 2004)

> 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."
> 
> ...





> " ....The Comte de Guibert (ca 1800's?) thought that one hit in 500 rounds fired was a reasonable score. Perhaps the best achievement in musketry in the whole period came at Maida in Calabria 1806 where Kempt's light brigade, 630 strong (Baker Rifles?)....fired three volleys, the first at 115 yards and the last at 30.....seemed to have achieved the remarkable hit rate of one hit for just over four rounds."    Richard Holmes, Redcoat: The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket.  Harper Collins 2001.



Apropos of very little here but after I saw the above quote from Lanning (posted by D-n-A I believe) I was reminded of Holmes's discussion on the killing ability of Muskets and other Muzzle loaders.  Other authors confirm similar types of data, usually with comments to the effect of how poor musketry skills on the battlefields were and commenting favourably on the chances of survival of the "victims".

Based on comparative stats it seems to me that there is a case to be made for reverting to "Brown Bess" and the Baker Rifle.   ;D
Quartermasters would be happier.

Cheers.


----------



## tacsit (28 Jun 2004)

Kevin, good post. Was wondering when you were going to step in  . Please check out the thread in the equipment section regarding non-issue kit. I think your voice needs lending to that issue.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2004)

Tac,  I had kinda forgotten about this site (and been REALLY busy)

 I responded in that other thread -- Now I know why the Strats were all upset about my Oakleys on head, sleeves unbuttoned DGAF attitude  ;D


----------



## tacsit (28 Jun 2004)

Kev, you should check in more often bro. I hopped over from LF once I saw some of the posts here... oy the amount of disinformation! Any chance of you coming to the tac carbine course in July? Was moved down to Camden so us guys who're going are renting a van, doing the road trip bit. Stopping by the LF store on the way back up as well. Keep up the fight with DLR eh? The pointy end guys need it. BTW, will be e-mailing you in a couple days to bank your veritable wealth of AR knowledge so keep a lookout, need some advice.

P.S. The Oaks and sleeves? Yeah. Heaven forbid somebody might look like a member of the ski team . Can't have that now can we  ;D.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2004)

tac - heavens no...

 My leave block is booked unfortunately - trip to Ont w/ my son and visit the folks.

 Circa March/April next year I will have some time to take in some more courses... 

Actually had a good meeting with DLR - while we agreed to disagree on some points, 
they definitely do listen.


Kev does the ski team impression
Bond, Kevin Bond  ;D   











KevinB - twice the asshole in half the time


----------



## Lance Wiebe (29 Jun 2004)

I'll throw in a little history for some that may be interested.

Being a sniper is an art of warfare all unto itself.  As most of us know, it takes far more than shooting skills and a fancy weapon to become a sniper!

During the 76 Olympics, there was a need for marksmen.  Trying to take someone out from within a crowd, so the army decided to run a marksman course.  It was run by the Infantry Battalions, not the School, and was designed simply to make a soldier a much better shot, and to try and instill the right mental attitude.  Standard issue weapons (FN's) were used, however, each weapon was taken, in our case from the 8CH, and inspected by armourers.  After being accurised, the designated soldiers fired groups from a pile of weapons, until a "match" was found.  The C3 was not considered, for two reasons, there were'nt enough of them, and secondly, it would make the marksman stand out from the rest of the soldiers.

These marksmen went through a very comprehensive course, which, naturally involved a lot of shooting, but no fieldcraft.  If I recall correctly, the course was six weeks long.

There can be a time and a place for marksmen, and accurised weapons, on that I think most will agree.  But, in my opinion, today, much more would be gained by spending a lot more time with the soldier and his weapon on the range, under competent coaches.  Today's soldier does not spend any where near enough time on the ranges beoming proficient with his weapon, be it 105 or 5.56 mm.  The ammunition cuts are criminal, and should be done away with!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jun 2004)

You know whats truly sad? I have done more range time with the navy then I ever did with the RCDs...I think thats getting downright criminal and negligent.


----------



## diverdown (13 Jul 2004)

I never had the chance to fire the M16, but am very familiar with the ol' C7.  We only had the opportunity to  let er' go on full auto a few times with live ammo, and I have to admit...it was hard to keep it from walking way up on me..especially firing from the hip.  I think I would prefer a 3 round burst as well, but having been disharged in 94, don't think I'll have to worry about that anymore


----------



## Scott (13 Jul 2004)

I found it funny that the optical sights on the C& don't reduce down to the common ranges for engagement...seems a little sorta NOT THOUGHT THROUGH.

Does anyone prefer the old iron sights to the opticals? I have never used the iron sights but have heard several say that they liked them better, didn't have to worry about dropping your rifle and screwing up your zero.

Cheers!


----------



## Spr.Earl (13 Jul 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You know whats truly sad? I have done more range time with the navy then I ever did with the RCDs...I think thats getting downright criminal and negligent.


No kidding,the most range time I ever had was on a Exchange with the R.E. in Sennybridge plus indoor range that was urban prep. for N.Ireland (S.L.R. with .22 conversion kit).

In my opinion,we all should go on the range at least twice a year and fire the C6,C7 and C9,so we all can be proficient with our light weapon's and like the old saying goes. 
"Just in case like teat's on a bull."


----------



## Scott (13 Jul 2004)

I have to agree with you Earl. I don't know what name the yearly proficiency tests are going by now, but I can remember Warrior training. No rundown, just static shoots, what is the use of that? We can go do that with granddaddy's .22 at home if we want. Throw the rundown in I say and get these guys working!! Those rundowns were the most fun I had during QL#, they showed who could static shoot and who had the ability to shoot with a little bit of heat on them. My humble opinion anyway........

Cheers!


----------



## mista_mo (23 Jul 2004)

Is there a difference between the m-16A2 and the C7? I have heard from many people that the C7 is the exact same weapon as the M-16 and harbours all of it's advantages and disadvantages, but "adds nothing to the table" so to speak. I've heard this from some people I know who were in the USMC and US army. However, I have also heard different from my dad and other students who know more about these kind of theings then I do (I have a very limited knoledge about firearms) and they usually say something like this:

"The C7 has less recoil and longer barrel life then the M-16. It also is better suited to wear and tear then the M-16 is."

Is this true? Please, can someone answer this question for a curius student?


----------



## Boots (9 Aug 2004)

Hi,
 i wont lie ..... i'm not actually in any defence force but i am a cadet in Australia. I was reading what u guys had to say and i thought u might b able 2 help me with something.
 i'm doing an enginneering project on the F88 AuSteyr and  i keep coming across the term 'bull pup'. What does this mean??? my limited experience with the weapon has never revealed that. ne thing else that may help in my presentation 2 my class would b good.
thanx


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Aug 2004)

Bullpup means that the receiver and bolt is located in the butt of the weapon.  There are many pros and cons to this, the main pro being that a weapon can be a lot shorter than, say, an M16, but still have the same barrel length.  Cons include weapon handling, as most of the drills involve removing the weapon from the shoulder.

I have fired the Austrian Aug, liked the gun, hated the sights.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Aug 2004)

Here's a link to a story on the Steyr, which may help.

http://remtek.com/arms/steyr/aug/edit/augsof.htm


----------



## Redeye (10 Aug 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> I found it funny that the optical sights on the C& don't reduce down to the common ranges for engagement...seems a little sorta NOT THOUGHT THROUGH.
> 
> Does anyone prefer the old iron sights to the opticals? I have never used the iron sights but have heard several say that they liked them better, didn't have to worry about dropping your rifle and screwing up your zero.
> 
> Cheers!



A gun plumber would better clarify this than I, but as I understand it, the optical sight setting start at 200m because up to that point there is no significant drop - it is only beyond 200m that the sights have to be reduced.  That is to say, the settings are the the same for 25m as for 200m.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2004)

scott1nsh said:
			
		

> I found it funny that the optical sights on the C& don't reduce down to the common ranges for engagement...seems a little sorta NOT THOUGHT THROUGH.



I'm not sure what you are getting at.  The sights are set at different increments from 200 on up for the most likely combat engagements.  It is not a 'Sniper' Scope.  The dial is easy to operate, and zero.  If proper care is taken the sights will maintain their zero.  I actually like them better than the iron sights.  My preference.

GW


----------



## brin11 (10 Aug 2004)

The old flip type iron sights only had two settings anyway; the larger aperture for 200 m or less and the smaller aperture for over 200m.  Everyone has their own opinion whether they prefer the iron sights or the optical sight.  I'm more comfortable with the iron sights simply because I've had very little practice firing with the optical.  Speaking of range time.....


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2004)

brin11 said:
			
		

> The old flip type iron sights only had two settings anyway; the larger aperture for 200 m or less and the smaller aperture for over 200m. Everyone has their own opinion whether they prefer the iron sights or the optical sight. I'm more comfortable with the iron sights simply because I've had very little practice firing with the optical. Speaking of range time.....



The two different apertures were not for range, but for day and night firing.   The range is set on the dial on the side, or more often by 'eye-balling'.

GW


----------



## brin11 (10 Aug 2004)

The rear sight itself was only a flip type.   The large aperture actually had 0-2 stamped on it.   The adjustable drum was for windage adjustment for moving the MPI left and right.   Each click of the drum changed the MPI 1.5" at 100 metres.


----------



## Boots (11 Aug 2004)

Hey thanx 4 ur help.
i like iron sights but thats probs just coz thats what i normally use.


----------



## mudgunner49 (19 Aug 2004)

Marauder said:
			
		

> Sapper, the C7 bolt ain't got nothin' on the .50's bolt. That thing should have a manual of its own.
> 
> As for all the kiddies who badmouth the C7 without having fired it... well, you're simple. Can't rephrase that to make it sound any nicer. Sorry.
> 
> ...



Ditch the heavy barrel and I could not have said it better myself.   Oh, and a huge ammo allotment for soldiers to practice more in realistc environments (jungle lanes, reactive targets, FIBUA/MOUT/OBUA sites) - and if anyone doesn't want to shoot, I'll take your ammo for my guys...



blake


----------



## mudgunner49 (19 Aug 2004)

Hogan's Hero said:
			
		

> Has there been any interest on the part of the Canadian Forces in the results of the US tests in changing the calibre of the M-16 to 6.88mm?



Absent the presence of someone with VERY deep pockets to fund the project, the 6.8 is DEAD in the water.  This isn't just me talking, this is news in the industry...


Blake


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2004)

Blake 6.8 is not dead - it was never alive.

 I have seen it first hand and think it has some potential - but in a 12.5" Midlength shorty as a doorkicker gun for CAG guys and the like.    

As a 5.56mm replacement I cant see it - Over at professionsoldiers.com   I  posted a paper done by 1SFG as to why they did not want it (6.8)

   Anyway - this topic has not produced much - I just noticed it now.

The US Army just killed the XM-8 (thank god) 

I think you will see in SCAR-L and SCAR-H a upgrade M16/M4/Sr25 platform that will be the next US joint service weapon (It is a USSOC program but the US ARMY signed on - and it will end up being our SARP III weapon (IMHO).


----------



## mudgunner49 (20 Aug 2004)

Combat_Cook said:
			
		

> 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."
> 
> ...


----------



## redleafjumper (21 Aug 2004)

Sorry gang, I just thought I had to say that I prefer the good ol' FN C1A1.  It's a bit heavier that a C-7, and so is its 7.62mm ammo, but I believe it to be a much more durable rifle.   

One of the issues with the SARP was that a soldier could carry more 5.56 ammunition than 7.62 for the same weight.  My thought is that one would likely have to use more to achieve a similar effect.  (Yes, I know that SS109 is nasty stuff...) The staticians and actuaries'll tell you that most shooting takes place at close ranges, so the heavier 7.62 bullet isn't needed.  However, with some of the recent desert taskings ( so much in vogue nowadays) where there are long distances with limited cover, I believe that there is still a place for the venerable FN and its superior (IMHO) cartridge.  :warstory:

Certainly the important factor is less the rifle than the soldier behind it.  Range time and practicing those IA's & stoppages are what is really important.


----------



## MG34 (22 Aug 2004)

The FN was good in it's day ,unfortunately it's day was 30 years ago.The lighter weight modular design of the M16/M4/C7/C8/etcetc has surpassed the mian battle rifle by light years. I love shooting my FNC1A1 but would not want to carry it again on any battlefieldor operational tour.


----------



## Da_man (25 Aug 2004)

From what i've heard we should all have the C7A2 within a year.   Now that means were not getting anything new FOR A LONG TIME.   
But now there are new rifles coming out, like the XM8.     According to this XM8 - US M4 System Comparison http://www.hksystems.com.au/pages/XM8.htm , the XM8 is superior in every way. Its cheaper, takes a lot less time to clean, etc.   Could we have waited a year or two to replace the C7A1 and get that instead?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2004)

Personally, I think the Armalite family of rifles (is that the proper term?) is fine; a combat weapon that has been proven with 30 years of use that has gotten most of the kinks out (unfortunately, at the cost of blood of soldiers using them in Vietnam).  I wish we could have seen the recent changes reflect more of what the guys actually using them felt were needed:

http://nightoperations.com/Doc/Infantry-Rifle-Carbine1.pdf

This fancy new rifle may be a superior rifle.  But the kicker is the word may.  I'm not willing to accept that we should have waited 2 years to replace our proven and still very effective rifle wholesale for something we have yet to see in action.  I would like to see a small number bought a distrributed to a sort of test unit (like the Panzer Lehr Division?) that can get a real idea of how the things actually perform.


----------



## MG34 (25 Aug 2004)

The C7A2 is a good idea but poorly executed,the days of 500m shots in a large European Plain,are over,combat now takes place at ranges of 300m or less (more on the less),anything beyond 300m is the realm of the support weapon (C9,C6,40mm,etc).The C7A2 shoud have came standard with a 16 in barrel,not the 20in as it has now.As well real user input should have been asked for "this is what you are getting , is this better than what you had before" line of questioning. the question should have been what do you NEED.
The XM8 is all but dead,but may see use in some limited numbers.
 The M4 carbine will be the most likely basis for the new US rifle,in a product improved design.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Aug 2004)

Armytimes.com has a different outlook on the fate of the XM8:

Issue Date: August 30, 2004

XM8 update: Your fix is in
Thanks to soldier feedback, the Army's expected next rifle will be lighter, fire faster and sight better

By Matthew Cox
Times staff writer


The Army is about to enter the final round of testing on what is well on its way to becoming your next weapon. The second-generation XM8s sport more than a dozen soldier-inspired refinements that weapons experts hope will help them convince Army leaders to adopt the new family of weapons in early 2005.
Until then, the new prototypes â â€ 17 carbines, 15 compacts and 14 designated marksman versions â â€ are slated for more soldier evaluation through the fall and winter.

The Army developed the XM8 in late 2003 as part of a longer-range effort to perfect an over-and-under style weapon, known as the XM29, developed by Alliant Techsystems and Heckler and Koch.

The XM29 fires special air-bursting projectiles and standard 5.56mm ammunition. But it is still too heavy and unwieldy to meet Army requirements.

The Army decided to perfect each of XM29's components separately, so soldiers can take advantage of new technology sooner. The parts would be brought back together when lighter materials become available. The XM8 is one of those components. 

The weapon was tested in lab conditions, and by soldiers in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized). 

â Å“Every time we take it to the field Army, they tell us to leave it with them,â ? Brig. Gen. James Moran, head of Project Executive Office Soldier, said at a June 14 Pentagon briefing.

Soldiers reacted positively, but they also had plenty of ideas for making the XM8 more effective on the battlefield.

The new prototypes â â€ standard carbine, compact carbine and designated marksman models â â€ include changes that make the XM8 more reliable, easier to operate and lighter to carry, said Col. Michael Smith, head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons.

â Å“We did not try to build the perfect weapon the first time,â ? Smith said. â Å“We did make a lot of changes. Soldiers definitely affected the design of the second generation.â ?

One of the more challenging changes involved redesigning backup iron sights.

The XM8 relies on special optics for its primary aiming system. There's a short-range version with a red aiming dot and a long-range version for use by marksmen. But soldiers always want the traditional front and rear iron sights, since anything electronic can fail, Smith said.

The backup sights fold down into the hand guard and carrying handle when not in use.

â Å“I'm very happy with the way it turned out; it's put out of the way until you need it,â ? Smith said. The original design was trashed, he said, because it called for the backup sight to be built into the optic.

â Å“What if it is smashed? That's why [soldiers] wanted it to be separate.â ?

Both optics have also been improved on the prototypes.

The battery life for each has increased from 110 hours to 400. And the new designs feature a lever-style clamping mechanism for attaching the optics to the weapon instead of the screws that soldiers tended to strip during testing.

Both the short-range and long-range optics have a built-in infrared pointer and illuminator similar to the PEQ2 attachment soldiers currently use on the M4 carbine. Plus, there's more range on the pointer and illuminator â â€ designers upped it from 600 meters to 800 on both optics. Soldiers can focus the pointer and illuminator on the long range or 4x optic while the same infrared features on the short-range or unity optic remain fixed.

Better aim

Developers said the full-auto capability should be more reliable now that they have increased the rate of fire by 25 to 50 rounds per minute. The change makes the XM8 capable of firing 850 rpm.

â Å“We did the change to give us better a capability in nasty environments like the desert,â ? Smith said, explaining that the higher rate should help push more sand and grit out of the chamber when firing. â Å“You get a little more force blowing that stuff out of there.â ?

The Army changed from full-auto to three-round burst on the M16A2 in the 1980s when the service decided most soldiers did not fire effectively in the full-auto mode. 

But weapons experts now say a soldier using three-round bursts is no more effective than one well-trained in the use of fully automatic fire.

Unlike the first generation, the designated marksman and automatic rifle models are now the same weapon, except the automatic rifle will be fielded with a special 100-round, drum magazine. The designated marksman variant will use the 30-round magazine used on the standard carbine.

The high-capacity magazine, which can be used in all the XM8 models, is intended to give commanders the option to beef up a squad's volume of fire beyond the current M249 squad automatic weapon, which is belt-fed and equipped with quick-changing barrels.

â Å“We are not proposing that we replace the M249 in the light machine gun role,â ? Smith said. The XM8 squad auto rifle's barrel can be changed but the process takes too long to perform in the middle of a firefight, he said.

â Å“It's not designed to give you that continuous high rate of fire the machine gun will give you,â ? Smith said.

Lighter load

The second generation XM8s include several ergonomic improvements, such as new ridges or knurls added to the cocking lever for a better grip. They also are about 15 percent lighter than the first prototypes, Smith said. That's about a pound less on the carbine model which now weighs in at 7.14 pounds with optic and loaded 30-round magazine. An M4 carbine with its standard attachments and a 30-round magazine weighs about 8.5 pounds, he said. 

The prototypes are black, but Smith said the final production models would most likely be a solid earth-tone since the Army's recently approved Army Combat Uniform has no black in the new digital pattern. Camouflage tests have shown that black is too easily detected during movement, Smith said.

The Army's senior leadership is scheduled to make a decision on replacing the M16 with the XM8 in February, Smith said.

There were plans to possibly field the XM8 to two infantry brigades in 2005, but Congress chose not to provide the roughly $27 million needed for the purchase in the fiscal 2005 budget or in supplemental funding, Smith said.

The Army could still begin fielding in 2005, but the money would have to come from existing programs, Smith said.

Before those decisions are made, however, the second-generation XM8s are slated to go through desert testing in Arizona in September, tropic testing in Panama in October and arctic testing in Alaska in December. A limited user test, involving an undisclosed, active infantry division is also scheduled for October, Smith said. 

â Å“As always, we are testing the changes to verify them,â ? Smith said. â Å“We want the very best for our soldiers. They deserve it.â ?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 Aug 2004)

For a Huuuuuuuuuge discussion on the XM8 vs. AR system (M-16/C-7/M-4/C-8) have a look at this Tolstoyian sized discussion thread on Lightfighter which I'd suggest you have a look at for more information on this topic.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=2356046934

XM8 looks interesting, but I don't see Canada switching to it anytime soon being that the CFs are so cash-strapped as it is, especially when a Canadian manufacturer exists with Diemaco who're pretty much in bed with the AR system of small-arms manufacture.

The only possibility for XM8 with the CFs may be as part of the Small Arms Replacement Project II which as indicated by the Defence Planning & Management office as not occuring for at least 11-15 years from now and the program has identified that it will either replace or upgrade the current small arms in service.  Meaning that the C7/c8 family might get another overhaul rather than be replaced.
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/ddm/scip/annex/ct04_e.asp#36.5

Personally, I like our very own KevinB's proposed C7A3 as being the future small arms platform for the CFs that MG34 provided the link to.  Good work Kevin!  Lets hope that the higher ups have the balls to admit that someone without a Queen's Commission or an MBA in "Systems Development" can come up with some well researched and firmly grounded observations and recommendations and at least trial the C7A3 concept rather than funnel money into the C7A2 cash cow.


----------



## MG34 (25 Aug 2004)

Let's not forget the XM8 is still just a contender,nothing will be decided until 2005 at the earliest since the budget for it has been cut it looks closer to 2009 provided they can salvage funds. The PIP M4 is right now a very likely candidate as well. I am all for the XM8,provided they get the bugs ironed out of it,even the G36 is having problems and it has been in service for 5 yrs now. When considering the cost of replacing every M16 and M4 in the US Army a retrofit of the existing M16 and M4 carbine stocks (ala C7A2) seems more likely than not.
 As for SARP III who knows what wonders the folks at DLR have in store for us,thankfully by that time I won't have to worry about it.


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2004)

XM-8 (and yes I have handled it) is a POS IMHO.


There is no reason to adopt a new system that is not revolutionary  - it would be a horrendous mistake and waste of money.


Look into SCAR-L and SCAR-H as the new US Army system...  The Army signed on to adopt what USSOC types clasifies from the SCAR trials...

 Diemaco is involved...


----------



## jonsey (7 Oct 2004)

Ok, I'm talking about the round thing that's sticking out of the right side of the rifle, between the stock and the casing ejection port. What does it do, and why is the AR-15 the only rifle family I've seen with one?


----------



## Andyd513 (7 Oct 2004)

hitting it with the palm of your hand is meant to help push the bolt that last bit forward into proper position for an initial shot.


----------



## KevinB (7 Oct 2004)

Many other rifles (M1,M14, FNC (but not FAL) ) have reciproacting charging handles that allwo you to force the bolt home if obstructed - the M16 series did not and the forward assit was added to the M16A1 to facilitate the locking the bolt when the chamber was fouled or for what ever reason the round was nto properly seated.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Oct 2004)

Andy_d said:
			
		

> hitting it with the palm of your hand is meant to help push the bolt that last bit forward into proper position for an initial shot.



On the M16A2/M4/C7 hitting may be the wrong word, more like ' pushing with thumb', as hitting or striking with the palm of your hand may cause a bigger problem.

That M16A1 'mod' Kevin mentioned first appeared in 1968 on all rifles less the ones used by the USAF. Theirs too, were modified in time, and in the early 1980s when the A2 appeared the design was changed from 'tear drop' shaped to round.

Other mods to the A1 from the original c.1965 M16 were the replacement of a chrome bolt and carrier, a new 'bird cage' flash suppressor, chrome bore, modified lower reciever which a raised 'guard' around the mag release was brought in, an improved bolt stop (hold open), and improved butt (butt trap and butt plate, and a different sling swivel). Also early M16s had a 1/14" twist, and this later was changed to 1/12" (5.56 x 45mm   M193).

Out of the approx 5000 M16A1 rifles still in service here, all are pre-1970 purchase/lend lease Viet Nam issue ( I have seen some with notches cut into the pistol grip and stock   :warstory , and many are actually pre 1968s, some marked XM16E1 by Colt with 5 digit serial numbers, others are post 1968 Colts (marked AR-15, M16A1, or a specific model number, and US Govt Property). Others are made by GM (General Motors). All now have the A1 uppers, and all the A1 mods, but as of last year the odd one was still old style, less the fwd assist. Many were tagged back in the 1970s, and had been in storage since then.

There are M4s on A2 lowers, and since the late 90s, Colt M4s (1/7") and Bushmaster (1/9") similar type wpns. These are all strictly for SF use. 

The F88 Austeyr still incorperates a forward assist right on the cocking handle, but I have never used it, nor is it in the trg pam either.

Euro AUG rifles with the folding cocking handle have done away with the forward asssist. Australia trialed this folding thing, but it failed to pass trials, as the rifle was difficult to **** (cockk) when certain optics were used on the Picatinny rail.


----------



## NavyGrunt (7 Oct 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> On the M16A2/M4/C7 hitting may be the wrong word, more like ' pushing with thumb', as hitting or striking with the palm of your hand may cause a bigger problem.



We were taught to hit the forward assist. And do it with the palm and fairly hard. Because if you DIDNT do that it could cause a problem....could you explain what the problem you see with hitting tyhe forward assist is?


----------



## MikeM (7 Oct 2004)

My Pl Cmd this summer said the same thing to us.. that we should press it with our thumb. Apparently hitting causes "wear and tear" on the weapon.Needless to say I will continue "hitting" the forward assist with my palm because I want to know that when it comes time to fire, my wepon is going to fire.

Wear and tear? Not really.. I haven't heard anything about wear and tear being a problem with the FA.


----------



## chrisf (7 Oct 2004)

After cocking the weapon, I always tap the foreward assist with my thumb, just because it's part of the drill, and it's a good habit to have.

When doing it as part of a "bolt fully foreward" IA, I always make sure to give it a good solid smack with the heel of my hand. Fighting from trenches in Shilo (Or anywhere sandy for that matter) gives you a major appreciation for how fast weapons can jam.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Oct 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> We were taught to hit the forward assist. And do it with the palm and fairly hard. Because if you DIDNT do that it could cause a problem....could you explain what the problem you see with hitting the forward assist is?



Aaron. Read the CF pam. I am not going to get into OPSEC here, but go to your unit and read the pam.

I reckon what you do in the field is your business, but abuse your wpn during trg, and you'll do the same in the real world, and others will copy you. Lead by example. You cant go wrong there. 

The damage caused from repeated hit and strikes will damage the forward assist, and mar the seriations on the carrier. Then when you need to use it, the fwd assist may just 'strip' on these seriations, and nothing will happen. I have seen this before, so it can happen. Remember, in battle the only thing sure is Murphy's Law.

After rebuilding 100s upon 100s of these weapons, I have seen it all when it comes to failures and things wearing and breaking.

As for the C7 stopping up in trg, blame that on the blanks, and the sand combined. If ball was used, you'd be a more happy camper.

Again, I gotta get to work, or I'll be late.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Andyd513 (7 Oct 2004)

Ah Wes thanks for answerring a big question I've had. We were taught during my basic to press with the thumb, so I learned all my drills doing it that way. Once I got back to my unit we did basic handling again almost immediately, and a Master Corporal made sure in no unclear terms that we were to hit the forward assist with the palm of our hands at all times. Being good little no-hooks, we alterred our drills.

Now I know I really wasn't wrong!


----------



## jonsey (7 Oct 2004)

Ah, so that's what it does. Good to know. Thanks guys.


----------



## NavyGrunt (7 Oct 2004)

Thanks Wes. I see what you mean and it makes total sense.


----------



## Inch (7 Oct 2004)

When did it change to pressing with your thumb? Any of you crusty old infantry types know? When I was in the militia, we were taught to hit the forward assist with the palm of your hand.  Same thing was taught by the Patricias and Royals at CFLRS when I went through there in 99.  I will admit I haven't done a PWT in about 3 years.  Has anyone done a PWT recently that can confirm the thumb vice the palm?

Cheers


----------



## MG34 (8 Oct 2004)

The forward assit has got to be the most useless item ever included on any rifle.if the round is not chambering it is for good reason,it makes no sense compounding the reason by jamming the round in.If you do your drills properly and conduct proper maintenance there is no use for it.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Oct 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> When did it change to pressing with your thumb? Any of you crusty old infantry types know? When I was in the militia, we were taught to hit the forward assist with the palm of your hand.
> Cheers



I left the 'Mo in Jan 95, and it had changed before then, so its been at least 10yrs.  

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Fusaki (8 Oct 2004)

IIRC awhile back someone on these boards mentioned that the forard assist was originally designed for cocking the weapon silently. 

As MG34 pointed out, a properly maintained C7 should not need the forward assist after being cocked normally. But if you ever wanted to ready the weapon without making too much noise, you'd be required to let the bolt forward under control. In that situation, using the forward assist to make sure the bolt was in place would seem reasonable.


----------



## MG34 (8 Oct 2004)

Ghostwalk said:
			
		

> IIRC awhile back someone on these boards mentioned that the forard assist was originally designed for cocking the weapon silently.
> 
> As MG34 pointed out, a properly maintained C7 should not need the forward assist after being cocked normally. But if you ever wanted to ready the weapon without making too much noise, you'd be required to let the bolt forward under control. In that situation, using the forward assist to make sure the bolt was in place would seem reasonable.



When would you ever want to do that?? Slowly releasing the bolt will do nothing but cause a stoppage,which is never a good thing.In all my years in the Infantry or on any of my 8 tours overseas I have yet to encounter a situation that would cause me to have to chamber a round "silently". There is only one way to ready the C7/C8 series of weapons,pull the charging handle fully to the rear and release it!
 If you are in a situation where the weapon should have been made Ready and it is not then you are doing many things very wrong!!!


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Oct 2004)

> When would you ever want to do that?? Slowly releasing the bolt will do nothing but cause a stoppage,which is never a good thing.In all my years in the Infantry or on any of my 8 tours overseas I have yet to encounter a situation that would cause me to have to chamber a round "silently". There is only one way to ready the C7/C8 series of weapons,pull the charging handle fully to the rear and release it!
> If you are in a situation where the weapon should have been made Ready and it is not then you are doing many things very wrong!!!



I'm going to play Devil's Advocate a little here. I HAVE had to do this (chamber a round silently) on an excercise once. I'm not saying its a good idea ( In fact, it was a very bad idea and I only did it because I was ordered to, so there), but for what it's worth, the FA does work for that purpose, especially if there's a bit of frozen condensation in the weapon.  It was a little bit of an "a-ha! so its good for something" moment for me.


----------



## MG34 (9 Oct 2004)

I can still so no circumstance where silently chambering a round would make any sense,as for frozen weapons,the usual drill in the winter time is to keep a round chambered at all times when in the field,so you don't have to worry about any frozen condensation,once the weapon is fired a few times there is no condensation or anything else frozen for that matter in the action.I don't know what your unit SOPs are but in mine and most others once you are in the field you chamber a round and the weapon is left in a ready state unless you are ordered to unload and clear it.


----------



## Scott (9 Oct 2004)

OK, just arsing around during my training I "silently" cocked my rifle, meaning I slowly let the charging handle forward. I did this to see if the forward assist actually worked. It did and I only had to tap it twice to get it into place. I was taught that there is no reason you should have to use it if you cock your weapon as shown. BTW, Wes, I was also taught to give it a tap with the palm of my hand, not a crack, just a lovely little forceful rub. ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Oct 2004)

The argument that " A well trained soldier with a properly maintained weapon operating adhering flawlessly to the plans ans SOPs will never need such a silly feature, therefore it is useless." tends to find exceptions at the wrong moments, and by then, extra duties and remedial training may be too late.

Also, after a bit of thinking, I CAN see a relevent application. SOPs in low risk areas like Bosnia for the last few years have been to travel with magazine fitted but not made ready untill needed. As such, there may come a time when a member would find it prudent to make ready his weapon, but wishes to do so in a discreet manner, for example, so as to not appear too aggresive or alarmed to the local populace. Yes, Unlikely, but possible. 

In a related note, I've always wondered about the lack of velcro use on the magazine pouches on both the webbing and Vest. I have often theorized that perhaps someone high up noticed that velcro made an inordinate amount of noise when being opened, and concluded that it was not tactical enough. I didn't hit him with the first 30 rounds, now I must SHIT HE HEARD ME OPENING MY MAG POUCH........


----------



## KevinB (9 Oct 2004)

Britney,

 Sorry that is bullshit - charging the weapon if not readied is part of your ROE's and you woudl only be able to do it if you were going to escalate to deadly force - or were doing it as a show of force - it would/should not be done operationally in a quiet manner.


Reaper is 100% correct


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Oct 2004)

If its bullshit, there's no need to be sorry, I'm here to learn. We are all adults here, call it like it is and I'll do the same.

And the same ROEs would say you only need to carry 5 mags too.  Will you ever need more than 5 mags? Probably not. Ergo, wishing to carry more than 5 mags is obviously stupid. Hardly clear cut. Because something is never SUPPOSE to happen according to the ROE card it never will right? Before I get bogged down in semantics, here I mean of course the situation taking an unexpected turn, not the soldier deciding to invent new ROEs for himself. I'll do the pack drill and decide after the fact whether it happening was "bullshit" or not acording to the ROEs, but most likely at the time I'd rather have the feature and not need it than vice versa. 

So, the crux of the issue then is whether the added element of unreliability from the addition of the forward assist (serration of the bolt, etc). outweights the advantage that it may at some point be a useful feature. Actually, in light of MG34's comments, I'm going to agree with him.  If it were a personal weapon and I could be sure that the FA has never been misused/abused, then it's another story, but I can't be sure that the FA of an issued weapon hasn't been smaked around a thousand times by the previous owner, and is on the verge of failing. With the info provided by him, I am now(and only now) of the opinion that YES, the FA is a useless feature that does more harm than good.  You can be sure that I shall pass on this information to my less experienced/knowledgeble collleagues just as it has been passed on to me here.

Now are we all happy?


----------



## rdschultz (9 Oct 2004)

Having just finished my classroom weapons training here at St-Jean (weapons test was two days ago), I will confirm that we were told to "strike the forward assist with the palm".  On numerous occaisions throughout the training,  people in my platoon were told that pressing it with your thumb was incorrect.  I think people were actually given "mistakes" on their test for not striking it firmly.  

I haven't actually fired the weapon, and have basically no knowledge outside the many classroom sections, so I can't comment on whether its a good or bad idea.  I can just say that firmly striking it is the way it is taught here.


----------



## Da_man (9 Oct 2004)

i was also taught to hit it with the palm 2 times.


----------



## NavyGrunt (9 Oct 2004)

I was told 5 times.... ;D


----------



## AmmoTech90 (9 Oct 2004)

Britney,

I have never seen a set of ROEs that described how much ammunition you could carry.  I have heard some horror stories from Bosnia and Cyprus where members had to turn in their ammunition when they returned to camp or came of sentry/gate guard, maybe someone can let me know if that was due to flinching about troops having access to ammo 24/7 or was it ROE (keeping in mind OPSEC, etc).  On my tours all troops have kept their basic load with them.  As far as I have seen ROEs can limit you to the type of ammunition that can be employed but not qty.  It is unit SOPs, scales of issue, and availability that determin how much each person carries.  BTW, when I mention SOPs I am including informal procedures within units that allow troops to carry more than what written down in the kit list...


----------



## D-n-A (9 Oct 2004)

One of the reasons why your taught to palm the Forward Assist is so that your instructers can see you doing it, same with using your left hand to change the fire mode to S, R and A.

Least, thats what I've been told.


When I've gone on the range with my unit, I've hit the forward assist with my palm and thumb, and haven't had any problems with pushing in the forward assist with my thumb, aslong as you push it all the way down, it shoulden't  make a difference if you palm or thumb it.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Oct 2004)

There is alot of "at least of been told" and "it was shown to me this way" on this thread.  Can someone find a definitive answer and post it here?


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Oct 2004)

The definitive answer is that you "push the forward assist". There is no mention of how hard or with which part of the hand. 

ref: http://www.army.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/300-008/b-gl-385/001/PT-001/B-GL-385-001-PT-001_e.pdf

Intuitively, the thumb method makes sense to me. 

Ammotech90:

You are right, the basic load of the infantryman is not a subject covered specifically by ROEs. However, I think it would fall under the percieved escalation of force( don't quote me verbatim here, I don't have a ROE card in front of me). In the same sense that the mere prescence of support weapons such as machine guns can be percieved as an escalation of force, so too would a soldier obviously festooned with a much larger load of ammunition and/or anti-tank weapons than normal, or with body armour in a theatre where body armour is not routinely worn. All open to interpretaion by the chain of course. My point is that if I were told that a feature of the C7 service rifle and its associated drills were "bullshit" solely because the ROE card says I will never need it, what would I do? What would you do?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (9 Oct 2004)

B-GL-385-001/PT-001 THE RIFLE 5.56 mm C7 AND THE CARBINE 5.56 mm C8 (available at: 
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/publications_ie.asp?series=380_e) says to "Push the forward assist assembly" when ever it is mentioned except once.  During the Rapid Fire drills it says to "strike the forward assist assembly".  Having had to investigate worries about strike marks on the primers of 5.56mm rounds during I last tour I talked to senior Wpn Tech and was informed that a simple press with the thumb is what should be used, and not always.  The forward assist is meant for inclement conditions such as dirt, mud or carbon build up.  BTW, don't worry about small stike marks on the bottom of your rounds if they have been chambered.  Due to the AR15 families' floating firing pin it will happen but is not a safety concern.


----------



## Britney Spears (9 Oct 2004)

> The forward assist is meant for inclement conditions such as dirt, mud or carbon build up.  BTW, don't worry about small stike marks on the bottom of your rounds if they have been chambered.  Due to the AR15 families' floating firing pin it will happen but is not a safety concern.



Devil's advocate again.



> Although the M4 MWS was reliable, the team observed light primer indentation occurrences in the M16 series rifles: M4s and M16s. As soldiers locked, loaded and cleared weapons prior to and after operations or as directed, the primer was indented. Upon return to CONUS discussions with weapons engineers revealed that each time a cartridge is chambered in an M16 Series Rifle or M4 Series Carbine, a slight indentation is made on the primer. This is caused by contact of the free-floating firing pin against the cartridge primer as the bolt closes. This is a function associated with normal operation of the weapon. The Army conducted tests to investigate the effects of multiple detents on 5.56mm ammunition. No slam fire, or accidental discharges occurred.
> 
> However, cartridges are not intended to be repeatedly re-chambered as this may de-sensitize the primer and/or deform the body of the cartridge case sufficiently to cause misfires. The potential for a misfire may occur in as few as 10 to 20 lock and load cycles of the same cartridge. No misfire occurrences were directly observed from indentations but soldiers relayed some occurrences of accidental discharges when going through the clearing procedures and one soldier experienced a misfire â â€œ from a round cycled through the chamber numerous times. Further testing is planned to more accurately quantify these conditions and establish the need of a Maintenance Advisory Message (MAM).



Source: http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm


I am merely quoting third sources,as I have nowhere near the ammount of experience or expertise of the other members posting.


----------



## chrisf (11 Oct 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> As for the C7 stopping up in trg, blame that on the blanks, and the sand combined. If ball was used, you'd be a more happy camper.



Consider that we were in trenches dug in what amounted to a large sand box, with constant rain... can't imagine any weapon, firing ball or blank, would perform at it's peak like that


----------



## KevinB (13 Oct 2004)

We have been getting the slight indentations forever - no biggie.  Op Stock ammo should be rotated out occasionalyl and the fired at the range and replaced with new stock.

 We have been teaching two bumps with the right heal of the palm for a while.  Provided the bolt is seated it will not due anythign with the firing pin and even if it is not the bolt closing on its own momentum will have more inertia than your palm.

Guys - Reaper and 1 are reg force infanteer (RCR and PPCLI respectively) we have used these weapon in a few countries in both trg and operationally - the C7 and C8 family are outstanding performers (the C8SFW won the BRit SF weapons trials Arctic, Jungle and Desert...)

 I used the C8SFW in Afghan and have 0 complaints...


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Oct 2004)

KevinB:

I happened to be perusing the new(to me) diemaco website, they seem to have a number of new gucci projects in the workings. 

Seeing as the threads are now merged, can you give some insights as to the more widespread fielding of the new small arms and attachments throughout the forces? As far as opsec would allow anyways, to pre-empt the next "when do i get issued a C8CT" thread


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2004)

Operational units deployed have almost 100% C7A2 conversion.

Fairly shortly the rest of the three reg force Brigades will all be C7A2.

Now in 031 units the rilfe platoon are allocated 12-16 C8SFW uppers as well - these are dropped on and the C7A2 upper tossed in the trash (j/k stores holds them).  Furthermore their are a number of C8A1 available as well and these are intergrtaed into the mix I know for B Coy 1VP in Kabul nearly all the C7A2 have been replaced with either SFW uppers or C8A1's. 

C9A2's: Now I have heard that there are very limited # of these conversions kits - it is a bbl and butstock conversion and new feedcover.  Unfortunateky in most 031 units the basic gun is beat to rat Sh*t and shoudl be replaced with a new one from WarStock - this is not happening yet - and we had a troop shot in the hsot due to a defective gun that was simply worn out and decided to  let a 5rd burst go inside the LAVIII...

CLAD/LAD (PEQ2-A and PAC-4C IR Laser Aimers) and MNVG (PVS-14) the CF only bought x # of these - there are 2500 sets (IR laser and NVG) for operations and some for trg - the resuly is only cbt arms forces get these and only for either operation of limited domestic trg.

PRR (personal role radio) I have no idea on how many where bought but they dont last very long Afghan...

WeaponLight - Surefire Classic: we bought the wrong light and as a result most are now N/S - a UCR has been submitted and hopefully we will buy a Surefire light made for weapons...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Oct 2004)

"in my opinion, today, much more would be gained by spending a lot more time with the soldier and his weapon on the range, under competent coaches.  Today's soldier does not spend any where near enough time on the ranges beoming proficient with his weapon, be it 105 or 5.56 mm.  The ammunition cuts are criminal, and should be done away with!"

at a BARE minimum the simulator should be used weekly.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> "in my opinion, today, much more would be gained by spending a lot more time with the soldier and his weapon on the range, under competent coaches.   Today's soldier does not spend any where near enough time on the ranges beoming proficient with his weapon, be it 105 or 5.56 mm.   The ammunition cuts are criminal, and should be done away with!"
> 
> at a BARE minimum the simulator should be used weekly.



DITTO


----------



## foerestedwarrior (21 Oct 2004)

I think thats a good idea, my unit was allowing people to come in on tuesday nights(admin nights) and they had a MCpl run the sat trainer for anyone who came in, it was great practice.


----------



## coyote (7 Nov 2004)

I'm a little confused. I have been taught that the weight of the C7 is 3.9 kg and 4.4 kg with the 30 round mag. But than another instructor said it was 3.3 and 3.9. Which is it?


----------



## KevinB (7 Nov 2004)

Coyote - I cant help you - trouble is we have three C7 variants in service (C7,C7A1,C7A2) add in optic weights and you have a broad rnage of weights...  Effectively you have five variants for the C7A2 with the SFW upper, and C7A2 with SFW upper w/RAS.

IIRC The C7A1 w/ C79 and load mag was 3.86kg (likely simplified these days to 3.9 :) 


According the DND website 3.3kg unloaded and 3.9kg loaded


----------



## ramy (16 Dec 2004)

just found this , since we had a few "lefty" threads I thought I would post this..


http://www.stagarms.com/


----------



## M16 (16 Dec 2004)

Are there any major differences between the C7 and M16 besides the select-fire modes?


----------



## excoelis (16 Dec 2004)

Yeah......one's American and one's Canadian.

Is that what you mean by major differences?


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Dec 2004)

Both the M16A1 and M16A2 are safe-semi-auto, and M16A2's come with or without burst control, and with or without field and fully adjustable rear sights, and with and without flat tops, etc.

Also they come in 1/7, 1/9 or 1/12, twist, either thick or thin bbls too. Colt has many models of the A2.

Cheers,

wes


----------



## COBRA-6 (25 Jan 2005)

I know this is a old thread, but I got a chance to shoot the new rifle last summer in Connaught. Big improvement, and the Elcan sight is upgraded as well, so it doens't loose the zero. I also shot it with the detachable supressor, makes it shound like a 22, grouping still tight (from 100m), it actualy made it easier to shoot tight groups in the wind, as the extra weight helps stablize the muzzle, same for limiting recoil jump... I hope they issue the supressors on a large scale, could come in very handy while on a patrol when you don't want to get compromised...


----------



## ramy (27 Jan 2005)

Hey Wes, whats the difference between a Barrel that is utilizing a rifle twist of 1/7 and one that is 1/9 ?
Does it only affect the rate at which a bullet twists during flight ?
thanks for your insight.


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Jan 2005)

I do believe with the 1/7 and 1/9 one can use both M193 and SS109 and get good ballistic results. We have 1/9 on our Bushmaster carbines, while everything else in catalogue is 1/7.

As for twist, its 1/7", 1/9" or 1/12". Bullet weight plays a big role in accuracy, stabalisation, and hitting power at good ranges.

Example M193 fired from a rifle w/1/12" will not penetrate US M1 steel helmets or standard US body armour (c.1980) at 800 metres, while the SS109 fired from a rifle with 1/7" twist goes through both types of equipment a these ranges.

Hope this helps ya out.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## soldiers301 (28 Jan 2005)

> it was a cost thing. just cheaper to paint it all green then to do cadpat.
> nice to see something like that come out eventually, even with it's warts and all it'll hopefully be a better weapon.
> Greg



It was not a cost thing ... During the test for CADPAT painted rifle, the CADPAT colour was fading out in about 1 days ...The current C7A2 is not painted but made of Green plastic furniture. 

The only reason was the fading of the colour ... not the cost.


----------



## soldiers301 (28 Jan 2005)

This photo was taken during CADPAT equipement test adn appear on CTS website. Take a look at his rifle  ;D  :threat:


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Feb 2005)

Cool pic, eh


----------



## freezi_girl (6 Feb 2005)

HELLO! Ok, I'm brand new to the army (TOS Jan26) and I'm doing a weekend BMQ course. I was wondering if there are any sites that list all the parts of the C7 rifle? If there was one in this thread, I'm not sure, there's so many pages. Also are there any for weapon handling? I've only done one weekend, and I have the basics of it, but I'm a dweeb and I reasearch things for no reason, so if you know of any sites, please let me know! Thanks!,

4SYTH


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2005)

ANTi-PiLOT,

Whats with the username ??


----------



## freezi_girl (7 Feb 2005)

Oh, sorry. That has nothing to do with the military. Its just that while in cadets, I earned my glider pilot license, but I didn't want to continue to get my power license, and eventually I started to hate flying, so they called me the anti-pilot. I can change it if it's offensive to anyone, or if it has a negative tone.

4SYTH


----------



## aesop081 (7 Feb 2005)

:: SiC TRANSiT GLORiA MUNDi :: said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry. That has nothing to do with the military. Its just that while in cadets, I earned my glider pilot license, but I didn't want to continue to get my power license, and eventually I started to hate flying, so they called me the anti-pilot. I can change it if it's offensive to anyone, or if it has a negative tone.
> 
> 4SYTH




No i sweat....i was just currious...cheers


----------



## freezi_girl (7 Feb 2005)

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHERE i CAN FiND iNFORMATiON (AS iN, SPECiFiCATiONS AND NAME OF PARTS) ABOUT THE C7 RiFLE? ANY iNFO iS GREAT.
THANKS!

4SYTH


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Feb 2005)

http://www.army.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/300-008/b-gl-385/001/PT-001/B-GL-385-001-PT-001_e.pdf


----------



## freezi_girl (7 Feb 2005)

Thank you very VERY much  

4SYTH


----------



## renfley (1 Mar 2005)

coyote said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused. I have been taught that the weight of the C7 is 3.9 kg and 4.4 kg with the 30 round mag. But than another instructor said it was 3.3 and 3.9. Which is it?



found this while doing some reading....

The rifle weighs 3.3 kg and 3.8 kg with a fully loaded magazine. The weight of
the rifle with C-79 Optical Sight is 3.9 kg and 4.4 kg with a full magazine.

Hope this helps


----------



## civvy3840 (1 Mar 2005)

I have seen a pic of this version of the M16 and the optical site was mounted on top of the iron sites. Does the C7 have a feature like this? I personally think it would be a good idea to have this because from what I've heard with the optical sights it is hard to hit targets at a close range.


----------



## Da_man (1 Mar 2005)

Well The C7A1 has a rail so you can put whatever you want on it.


----------



## Freddy Chef (1 Mar 2005)

Hey *civvy3840*,

Do you mean optics mounted on the old carrying handle, like this:

http://images.gunsamerica.com/upload/976378506-1.jpg

?


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Mar 2005)

Upper recievers for M16 and vairants.

In short there are 5 types:

1. With carrying handle (with either round or rectangular hole for optics and mounts and deflectors), no forward assist or deflector, generic rear sight. Used on early Colt XM15's and Colt M16's all pre 1968, plus on commercial SP1 uppers. 

NOTE:
........It should be understood that strict guidelines from the US BATF ensured that uppers from comerical AR-15s cannot interchange with the selective fire version. Hence there are some design changes between the two. Such as the 'horse-shoe' milling near the hole for the take down pin on the selective fire version is absent on the commercial AR15, and how they join onto the lower (AR15 SP1 and AR15A2) is different to the selective fire version (screw vs detent). On current modern uppers for semi automatic commercial models, only the horse-shoe has not been milled. The upper and lower now all marry up the same as the military models.

Other differences are the carriers are slightly different (yes they interchange, but semi only can be acquired if inserted inot a military model). Trigger grouping is slightly different, the selector is two positional only, (lower is marked 'safe and fire') and there is areas which are NOT milled and drilled on the commercial lowers. many companies now make many variants of this rflfe and carbine........ 

Now where were we....  ???

2. With carrying handle (with hole as above), no deflector, forward assist with tear drop type plunger, and generic rear sight. Designated M16A1 upper and post COlt H&R, and GM Hydromatic M16A1s post 1968.

3. With carrying handle (with hole as per para 1), deflector, forward assist with round type plunger, and new type adjustable rear sight (windage and elevation) as used by the USMC and US Army, c.1982

4. As per above with the exception of the old type generic rear sight. As used by Diemaco on the first C7 rifles, c.1985, and Colt M16A2 rifles with specific requests from clients wanting this type of sight on their uppers.

5. Without carrying handle (flat top), with deflector, with forward assist (round type plunger), and a Picatinny Rail permanantly milled onto the upper. This is the latest variant currently under production, and is found on the C7A1, C7A2 (and other Diemaco variants), M4A1, M16A2 and many others.

M4 uppers are discretely marked 'M4' near where the gas tube runs thru the upper, and under close inspection I cannot tell the difference.

Crikey, I hope I am not being to technical for ya's. On a hot day like today, I am tech'n myself out a bit - eek ;D

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (2 Mar 2005)

M4 or now 4 marked uppers above the cloverleaf have M4 feedramp cuts in the receiver to line up with the M4 bbl extensions whicxh also have deeper cuts than normal.  

 Colt Flattops are a different height (go figure) when using a carry handle than fixed handles uppers and require F marked (flattop) front sight gasblocks to set the frotn post for the corretc height using irons (either CH or BIS)


----------



## civvy3840 (2 Mar 2005)

That's pretty much the same pic Freddychef. Thanks for the info Wes. I will some be appleing to the army reserve and was wondering would this be considered costumizing my weapon? Also if I did mount the optical sight on the carrying handle would I have to by a special sight or just use the standard elcan one? One more question. Would I be able to do this for sure if I was in the regs? just wondering cause I've seen pics of guys in the regs with huge optical sites on their rifles.


----------



## civvy3840 (2 Mar 2005)

Sorry just one more thing. If you mounted the optical sight on the carying handle like that would it interfere with the iron sights?

thanks to all of you for helping me out


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Mar 2005)

The mount which fits on teh carrying handle is designed so the operator can also use the original iron sights.

As for mod'n your pers wpn, I don't think that will wash unless authorised using CF related and approved items.

Kevin should be able to fill you in on that.  Iam familiar with ADF policy, but being out of the CF loop for over 10 yrs now, I don't really have a clue.

Best to use what you are issued.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## civvy3840 (5 Mar 2005)

Kevin B would PPCLI alow some to put optics on the carrying handle? What other modifications would you be able to do??


----------



## KevinB (11 Mar 2005)

civvy3840 said:
			
		

> Kevin B would PPCLI alow some to put optics on the carrying handle? What other modifications would you be able to do??



Depending what you are doign and where you are will dictate.

 We dont have carry handle guns anymore - all are flattops.  We have a lot of leeway on optics as long as they are US or CF issue (I've seen Aimpoints, EoTechs, ACOG's and Leupold variable power scopes been authorized) 

 Putting a scope up on the carry handle is not ideal for many reason - the increase in height over bore increases the offset for different ranges makign a zero at one less close to zeros at others than a sight closer to the bore.  Secondly it causes turkey necking and lack of a good cheek weld.


----------



## Britney Spears (15 Mar 2005)

> We dont have carry handle guns anymore



Well, to be precise, the original recipe pencil barrel C8 is still in use, although they are becoming 2nd line training weapons mostly.


----------



## KevinB (15 Mar 2005)

True - but WE dont have them  ;D


----------



## Hunter911 (20 Mar 2005)

Ive seen the c7a1 and c7a2 in action. I also have extensive knowledge of all the diemaco family of weapons. It seems the c7a1 and c7a2 are both very reliable and well built weapons, but it seems that the c7a1 is growing older, and as the new c7a2's have been scaled down, have added features, and are better to use in close combat, which we are going to be taking part in alot in the next few years. I think that one of the major things the government should be doing is replacing all the c7a1's with a2's ASAP!

Hunter :threat:


----------



## SteveB (20 Mar 2005)

I know this is a long thread, it has taken me a while to read it.  The trouble with replacing A1 with A2 is many fold.  Read KevinBs web site or Dale Mc's post at SFU but if they permit me to paraphrase:

1. The A2 isn't really new, many parts, including barrels were at the point of wearing out when I left 8 years ago.  Just recycling isn't on.

2. The 20" barrel is too long and needs to be replaced with a 16" heavy.

3. The handguard needs to be replaced with a true RAS, the half assed rails at the gas block are inadequate or worse than nothing.

4. The C79 sight, even if improved has lost all credibility with the infantry. No matter how many improvements are made no one will/can ever trust it.  There are plenty of better units out there now and really the cost to outfit every infanteer reg and reserve is just a drop in the preverbial bucket.

5.  That extended cocking handle is crazy.  Who ever had a problem working the action with just their left hand anyway.

Remember, whatever the forces buy will be around for a long time.  Better to stop the A2 now and purchase that C8SFW now.  It's already in the system, the mods to make it perfect aren't hard.  I know it isn't likely, but the more people who know about this and ask questions, or get others involved the better chance for the infantry getting what they want.

Steve


----------



## McAllister (20 Mar 2005)

Anyone here (lefties aside) exited at all about the ambidextrous features of the A2s? Personally I've never had any problems with an old scholl safety catch or mag release.


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (22 Mar 2005)

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 (22 Mar 2005)

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 (22 Mar 2005)

http://www.diemaco.com/

Products -> Small Arms Systems

The SFW has a 16â ? barrel.


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2005)

That is a misnomer 

What we have is C7A2 lowers with the C8SFW upper.

My gun when I was in Afghan


----------



## Infanteer (23 Mar 2005)

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


----------



## pdr379 (9 Apr 2005)

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 (9 Apr 2005)

pdr379 said:
			
		

> 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 (9 Apr 2005)

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 (9 Apr 2005)

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 (9 Apr 2005)

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 (9 Apr 2005)

SteveB said:
			
		

> 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 (28 Apr 2005)

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 (10 May 2005)

"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 (30 May 2005)

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 (31 May 2005)

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


----------



## Hunter911 (31 May 2005)

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 (11 Jul 2005)

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 (12 Jul 2005)

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 (18 Jul 2005)

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 (18 Jul 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> and adjusting it to your comfort level


Key....


----------



## CADPAT_TW (4 Aug 2005)

I know the US are going to get rid of the M16 and start using the XM8 does anyone know if Canada is going to do the same


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Aug 2005)

CADPAT_TW said:
			
		

> I know the US are going to get rid of the M16 and start using the XM8 does anyone know if Canada is going to do the same



No.


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Aug 2005)

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


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> 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



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.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (5 Aug 2005)

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!


----------



## geo (8 Aug 2005)

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?


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Aug 2005)

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?


----------



## geo (9 Aug 2005)

Ah well... Kevin is Kevin
good troops with a noggin on his shoulders
Am certain that he is still the devil on his COs back


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (13 Aug 2005)

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:​


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Aug 2005)

> where did you get those photos,



Militaryphotos.net



> if I buy a RIS because the TRIAD mounts sucks and use the RIS, I will.



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?




> f formerhorseguard was in charge of our army we'd still be wearing ODs!



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.....


----------



## Roy Harding (13 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 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. ...



I don't know about the breast pockets - they were great for a pack of smokes (regular - not King size).


----------



## Britney Spears (13 Aug 2005)

> don't know about the breast pockets - they were great for a pack of smokes (regular - not King size).



Yeah, but that was before we had this: 





Also smoking is bad for you, you should stop doing it.


----------



## Roy Harding (13 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that was before we had this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## geo (16 Aug 2005)

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.


----------



## Acorn (17 Aug 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Aug 2005)

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.....


----------



## DG-41 (17 Aug 2005)

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


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2005)

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.


----------



## TCBF (22 Aug 2005)

"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


----------



## KevinB (22 Aug 2005)

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.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Aug 2005)

Nose to charging handle - interesting; you learn something new everyday.


----------



## geo (22 Aug 2005)

Kevin - can't really visualize you with "chipmunk cheeks"...  but that's something else

C1... I need an L... never saw anyone with gouges chewed out of em... though I've know a couple that've had their Ass chewed off by their Sgt (again - something else)... cheeks from not holding their rifle tight - yup - seen em often over the years - great lesson - you only do it once - knowingly.

Found that when firing the C1, soldiers would apply themselves more and get better shooting results - with the C7 have found a  big loss of marksmanship skills - I figure that it's the shooter that doesn't really respect his weapon any more.


----------



## KevinB (22 Aug 2005)

I was 18 then  :-[ - amazing what an additional 18years of shooting can do...

 I think the Optical Sight boondoggle was the biggest cause int he lost of marksmanship


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Aug 2005)

> I think the Optical Sight boondoggle was the biggest cause int he lost of marksmanship



Mmmm agreed. I always blame my sight for my poor marksmanship, never my rifle.


----------



## KevinB (22 Aug 2005)

- I'd say the fact that the Army as an entity used the scope to compensate for no longer teaching troops PROPER marksmanship principles.


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2005)

Hey Kev, nice to chat again.
Concurr - basic & simple iron sights made the shooter pay a lot more attention to what he is / was doing. Scopes, to a certain degree provide too much visual input. Old rotating disk or even older peep sight forced you to concentrate on what you should be doing.


----------



## KevinB (23 Aug 2005)

Geo - the LFRR site has no real equip areas for me to badger..  

 I really like optics - the allow the shooter to hit under many more conditions, quicker and with greater accuracy.

 that said - they cannot be used as a crutch (and the C79 is a terrible combat sight - but that later) BRM must be taught with irons.  One on one with a coach - and a coach who knows what he is talking about not some dope who can regurgitate the marksmanship pricnciple but someone who can practically apply them (about 1 in 100 NCO's these days)


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2005)

Hey Kev,
still workin on en to upgrade the old site - maybee..... some day.

Shooting skills deteriorated about the same time as the iron sight was taken away.
Yes - optics have their place but the decline of our shooting capabilities started with the hacking off of the old iron sight...
I find that most Reg & Res units don't do enough rifle training & this hasn't helped. Did some rocket scientist @ the Puzzle palace figure out that with the addition of the M79 sight the CF could cut back on marksmanship training?

If anything, those people who don't have a regular oportunity for live fire training would probably be better off being restricted to iron sights for their range qualifications.

Again - a personal opinion - and everyone has at least one 

Chimo!


----------



## KevinB (23 Aug 2005)

I just refuse to use the C79  ;D

 EOTECH HDS is coming on line for the 031's - ideal for CQB stuff - little lacking for tgt detection/discrimination - but maybe we will but into the X4 magnifier and the 552 EOTECH with lithium 123 batteries.

 I still beleive a mix of system is need for troops to do their jobs - but I'm only a Cpl and I dont have a PEng or MSc so my opinion is not relevant  :


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2005)

Kev, don't go modest on me
have seen & read some of your research

I concurr that there should be a mix of systems available - but before you let anyone loose with any kind of optical sight - ensure that said individual can handle marksmanship principles and the iron sight..... with that under his belt, can pretty much grow into whatever system comes to hand.


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> with that under his belt, can pretty much grow into whatever system comes to hand.


+1

 Unfortunately that does not happen much anymore.  A buddy of mine doing reflexive shooting this week had his technique "corrected" by a M/Cpl (who did not know the first thing about shooting, too wit his is the ND king)  Unfortunately some in the CF equate rank with knowledge...


----------



## geo (24 Aug 2005)

agree with you Kevin,
CF has screwed the pooch with the C79 and we're stuck paying the bill.
Now someone has to figure out a way to get us out of this fine pickle...
Still contend that the detachable iron sight should be issued out to all C7 drivers so that basic marksmanship skills can be developed.... and if that means that a Cpl gives out pointers to the Sgt & the WO then - so be it.


----------



## TCBF (25 Aug 2005)

"I always blame my sight for my poor marksmanship, never my rifle." 

Now that reminds me of a story ("OK", y'all ask, "what DOESN'T remind you of a story?").

Was shooting PWT fall of 99 getting ready for Roto 6, and I was having some difficulties.  To whit:  failing.  So we get to Wainwright to continue on a 'conventional' range, and the problem persists.  On the plus side, we now have a HUMAN butt party, and the target ho said "You were bang on until serial___ then everything ended up dumping to the right.  Immediately, not gradually, and consistantly to the right."

Hmmmm...

So I bring in said carbine to the gun plumbers - verdict:  loose barrel.  Gun plumbers re-attach bbl using their favourite colour of nail polish (what - ever), and my C8 shot like a charm after that.  Me too.

Tom


----------



## Jay4th (26 Aug 2005)

I don't believe the C79 is to blame. I dont believe that individual lack of respect for the weapon is to blame either. IMHO the culprit is clearly training time.
I cannot remember when the last time I was on a firing line where every shooter had a coach, let alone maybe a coach for every three shooters. It wasn't this decade or the last one.
When was the last time anyone on a DND range was firing just for practice?  
When did ARSO become synonymous with coach?
Can anyone name 3 senior NCO's that agree on which way to spin the damn dial?
We abreviate the Shoot to live program, run all in one rainy morning.
We accept groups that are way huge, RSO's yell "Lets f****ing go, we got three more relays.
Then we get charged when we yell at the RSO cause the damn computer isn't recognizing our shots.
Thanks alot for the paycheck , but I'll do my training on my own time.


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2005)

The attack of Angry Jay  ;D

 I will agree the C79 is not fully to blame - but JAY, you will remember that over HALF of B Coy 1PPCLI's C79's where N/S prior to work up trg to got on RotoII.  

I agree with what you've post 99% BTW.


----------



## Jay4th (26 Aug 2005)

I was just being thorough in my recce before opening my big angry mouth.
The C79 isnt going to get any better now that everyone leans like hell on it to close the reciever with 'buffer elastometric" installed. Don't get me wrong, the thing totally soaks up the slop in an overly worn rifle.


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2005)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> leans like hell on it to close the reciever with 'buffer elastometric" installed.



Ah the Accu wedge  ;D - what a fricking waste - worn guns shoudl be N/S and refrubished - inc reannodizing.

I swear I could pulled enough useless parts off the C7A2 to have money for a complete C8SFW (inc KAC RAS) for the 031's - w/ EOTECH HDS...


----------



## Jay4th (26 Aug 2005)

Next month when we get th C8FTHB as they are now marked there will only be enough for sgts, mcpls. 
It seems to me that strapping the M203 to one would be a good idea since that is the whole reason for the barrel profile. However, I just looked and nowhere in CFAO's does it say that stuff has to make sense. If anyone knows of any more accessories I can hang from my muzzle I'm listening. Maybe a second side mounted C79 as a backup....


----------



## TCBF (26 Aug 2005)

I bought an 'Accuwedge' at a gun show in Duluth, Minnesota, in 1988.   I never used it.   I thought that if you had too much slop between your upper and lower receiver (caused by trying to close the rifle with the pin pushed back in, usually (oops!), the accuwedge might just exacerbate it. When they started putting them in ALL of the wpns, I laughed.   I told my guys to take them out.   They will cause more harm than good.   Rifle team, OK.   Recce Sqn Crewman, no. 

Tom


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2005)

Since Sgt's and Jacks typically get pistols on tour - and they never search houses anyway - they send us "expendable crewmen"(TM) I can never figure out the logic of issuing only 2 C8FTHB / SFW(w/o RAS) / section.
 Then on you get eveything - and noone (especially Sgt's and M/Cpl's) know how to use/employ it properly. 

 Like you said Jay, thanks for the paint bullets, I had a great day - but I'll do my training on my own  ;D


----------



## drummie1625 (16 Sep 2005)

I am retired American military, I read about the destruction of the C-1 and C-2 rifles, my heart goes out to you. As a cadet I qualified with the M-1 Garand, and later with the M-14, M-16 And on exchange with the L1A1.If the M-16/M-4/C7 was the all around best weapon, why is the U.S. forces scrambling to acquire M-14/M-1A rifles for service in Afghanistan and Iraq? Could it be that the  7.62 is better suited to that environment then the poodle shooters(5.56)? Also to the best of my knowledge the  Brit's pulled all They're L-1's from service.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Sep 2005)

Ya Drummie, our L1A1s too have felt the heat of the smelt. As for our SF community in two ME theatres, we have re-introduced the 7.62mm NATO cartridge in the Springfield Armory M1A Scout. I have no idea how many, nor the UoI per Sqn/Coy either, but I do know we have them, along with Romanian new and 'off the shelf' 7.62 x 39mm AKMS (side folder East German style), AKM, and 5.45 x 39mm AKS74's. Not war trophies/battlefield pickups, but recent purchase for secret squirrel reasons. It is common knowledge that they are out there.

To add to it, you will NOT see any SASR or Commandos with the F88 FOW either. The AUG has proven itself NOT in arid and wet environments, and the SF community refuse to use it period. See a guy in DPDU with an M4 and see the same with an F88 you know who is who ;D

I am NOT alover the the AUG and variants, and why our governemt continues to pump $$$$$ into its upgrade and development continues to baffle me. Its the Edsel of its own kind.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (17 Sep 2005)

FWIW - The US Army came up with SASS to replace the M14's that could not fit the bill, for a variety of reasons.

 There are lots of reasons to use OPFOR weapons in certain usages - particularily SR/TR Recce missions...


----------



## canadianblue (14 Dec 2005)

When I was at BMQ we were issued the C7A2's and even though I have fired weapons previously I had failed the 100m firing test, however passed the 200 m test easily. I would like to shoot with the iron sights just to see if that would make any difference in marksmanship skills. However when I used the C7A2 a major problem we had on our course was the butt plates constantly falling off in the field, and the "improved" cocking handle breaking.


----------



## zishka (4 Jan 2006)

Before I got out I used the C7 with the Elcan and I thought it was the cats pajamas. Every year of service I qualified master marksman ( Infantry standard/ PWTL3) and used iron sights as well as c79 and I preffered the scope, could be by that time my near sighted ness was getting worse, but as long as it was maintained it 
was a great piece of kit. Initiailly when they first were issued the site post inside flaked and there were other problems but these seemed to be sorted out in the next year or so. The yanks had a pretty neat holo site set up as well as mil-dot but for the iron site enthusiasts I'd say its a dead argument. Its not the optics or sites as it were that makes a better/worse marksman. Optics only help you to see better.


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2006)

Z
you got that right - Optics improves vision, it does not improve shooting skills.


----------



## Gunnerlove (5 Jan 2006)

A quote from an ERT instructor "It is far faster to put a red dot on a target than it is to line up iron sights, especially in low light conditions or while wearing a resperator" He also made the point of the psychological disconnect that optics provide. You put the dot (green triangle) on the target and squeeze the trigger.


----------



## Kal (6 Jan 2006)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> A quote from an ERT instructor "It is far faster to put a red dot on a target than it is to line up iron sights, especially in low light conditions or while wearing a resperator" He also made the point of the psychological disconnect that optics provide. You put the dot (green triangle) on the target and squeeze the trigger.



I have heard actually the exact opposite.  I was watching a documentary about the war in Iraq and some of the soldiers thought it would be easier to drop the hammer on someone using an optic.  They went on to say that was not the case. 

While using an optic can enhance one's shooting ability, a strong foundation of the fundamentals is needed before advancing into more complex shooting/fighting.

The psychological disconnection comes from proper mindset and training, not from an piece of equipment.


----------



## redleafjumper (6 Jan 2006)

I'm with Kal on this one, if you want people to shoot well, they should learn with iron sights.  That will give them the basics.  Save the technology for those who can already shoot well and have the training to take advantage of it.  Are iron sights faster than optics?  Well sometimes yes and sometimes no.  Factors such as light, mirage, and others all play a factor in target acquisition.  I have found that in some conditions iron is far faster for an aimed shot.  The "red dot" is fast as well, but usually not as accurate and is more finicky when faced with obscured shooting conditions such as smoke, fog, mist or ice.  Glass is great for many applications, but again can have problems with weather and is easily damaged by poorly trained users.  The key is good training and not expecting one system to be everything in all environments.  If that's what one is looking for, iron sights look pretty good.


----------



## geo (6 Jan 2006)

Optical sights are for all intents and purposes "bells & whistles" BUT if you don't already have a good foundation in the basics of marksmanship then the Optics aren't going to help you direct your fire onto target.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Jan 2006)

I think there's an argument though that optics make it easier to teach the basics:

1) No need to line up a foresight and rear sight

2) At typical training ranges, the target appears much bigger through the optics, making it much easier to pick a constant point of aim (and making any wobbling around more obvious to the shooter) 

3) People seem to understand a dot, crosshair, or "pointy post" better than a blade foresight

I shot competitively before I ever made it to the Army, and I shot over ironsights in the Army long before I shot through optics. I vastly prefer optics.

DG


----------



## geo (6 Jan 2006)

DG
once you've MASTERED your shooting skills the Optics make a lot of sense
before that - I'm more of the opinion that you get more bang for your buck by training with Iron sights and concentrating on picture, posture, breathing and firing techniques.
Optics give the inexperienced shooter too much to look at. He gets easily distracted and the learning curve is 10x longer.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Jan 2006)

I can't say I agree. I've been a unit shooting team coach a few times, and I think that it's easier to teach breathing control etc because the optics give better feedback by making the POA movement more obvious.

That includes the C9 too. We won the machine gun competition with optical-sighted C9s, in part because we developed a technique at the range that maximised the advantages of having the optical sight.

DG


----------



## flashman (6 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Optical sights are for all intents and purposes "bells & whistles"



I disagree - I think optics are a basic necessity now.  Irons don't work with NV, and have no ability to assist in target discrimination, and are slow to use at short ranges (ie, the 90% scenario where individual wepaons are employed).  Basic C7A1 sight should be the Aimpoint / EOTech, with a smattering of ACOGs.  A zero power optic has all the advantages of irons, none of the disadvantages, and several extra benefits as well.


----------



## geo (6 Jan 2006)

flashman said:
			
		

> I disagree - I think optics are a basic necessity now.  Irons don't work with NV, and have no ability to assist in target discrimination, and are slow to use at short ranges (ie, the 90% scenario where individual wepaons are employed).  well.


Flashman,
you're not getting my point - I'm not suggesting we do away with the Optical sights I'm just saying that the Iron sights is a better tool to teach basic marksmanship skills.


----------



## WogCpl (6 Jan 2006)

Optics!
Two words.
1.Rain
2.Fogging
I see your point with optics, but i think iron sights are more usefull given our "diverse" climates. As such, i think that all should learn to shoot iron.


----------



## flashman (6 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Flashman,
> you're not getting my point - I'm not suggesting we do away with the Optical sights I'm just saying that the Iron sights is a better tool to teach basic marksmanship skills.



My misunderstanding then, sorry!  I am not sure basic marksmanship training with irons is necessary though - but barring a through study of shooters trained on irons and then converted to optics vs. optics only, I don't think there is a answer that isn't completely coloured by personal opinion and bias (either for or against optics).  
My personal belief is that it's far easier to train someone to shoot well with optics, and the end result is just as good a rifleman.  I don't see what irons offer as a learning tool that optics don't.  
And for all those that hand wringing that goes on over the state of marksmanship, I am perfectly happy with the ability of 90% of soldiers to shoot accurately enough.  Where our deficiencies lie is in useful shooting skills that will be of any use whatsoever in combat.


----------



## flashman (6 Jan 2006)

FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> Optics!
> Two words.
> 1.Rain
> 2.Fogging
> I see your point with optics, but i think iron sights are more usefull given our "diverse" climates. As such, i think that all should learn to shoot iron.



Rain is not an issue nor is fogging.  Both can occur, and both are easily dealt with - fogging only if you are bone headed enough to bring your weapon in and out of doors where there's a large temp variation; as for rain, well, I have yet to be in a storm so bad that a quick wipe with my sleeve or finger didn't solve the problem.  
I think your opinion that irons are more useful needs a bit of a rethink - have you ever tried using irons while clearing rooms?  At night with NVG? At night at all?    
Why on earth do you think a sight that, at present, is useless 16 hours a day is the best choice?  Why on earth are iron sights no longer used as the primary sighting system by any of the major militaries?  
You say you think iron sights are more useful - why?  What specific attributes of irons makes them better than an Aimpoint or ACOG?


----------



## Kal (6 Jan 2006)

I definitely think that optics are required in some situations, ex. long range shooting/sniping.  While shooting with an optic may make teaching the fundamentals easier in the beginning, I am not sure that it is beneficial for the end product.  The major advantage irons have over electronic optics is that irons always work.  If your red dot should take a crapper, the shooter has to go to irons.  Now if the shooter hasn't learned using the irons, then what good are they, more of a liability than anything.


----------



## flashman (6 Jan 2006)

Optics are required in all situations, and especially in CQB shooting.  
We need to design indiv weapons to solve the 90% problem, which is quick encounters at 100m or less.  The C7A1 at present is the solution to 10% of the soldier's problems, ie deliberate shooting at ranges from 200-300m which it is what it is optimized for. 
Irons absolutely do not always work, they can get smashed and lose zero as well.  And putting damage aside, they are "broken" for over half the day by virtue of being unusable.  There have been no widespread issues with the failure of optics in OIF and OEF, and we're talking tens of thousands of units in daily use.  Battery life and fragility were long ago shown not to be the boogey man the optic sight detractors said they were going to be.     
Irons start off being useless at least half the time, and have severe employment limitations to boot.  They are obsolete, and not sufficient as a primary sight. 

Has anyone here actually made use of an Aimpoint or ACOG in the field or for other shooting?  Can you really form an objective and educated opinion as to their necessity, durability and other advantages without having done so?   

You have an excellent point as to the necessity to use irons in a back up role, one I overlooked in my dogged instance that optics are necessary - I think you're absolutely correct.  What I don't have is much worry about optics going down.  It simply hasn't proven to be the case.  

There's a great paper HERE that pretty much covers all the reasons I can think of why irons alone don't cut it.  There's another great paper on combat marksmanship skills HERE.  
 A description of what a Marine Gunner is can be found HERE.  I only wish we had such beasts in the CF - to me Gunner Eby's papers epitomize what a Senior NCO should be doing; namely being incredibly well versed and proficient in the technical aspects of soldiering, and ensuring everyone else is made aware and brought up to date too.  The methodicalness of his thinking is visible - he precisely identifies what capabilities a soldier and his rifle must have, and thus what training and equipment they need.  Quite the logical and refreshing change.


----------



## Kal (6 Jan 2006)

You may be misunderstanding me, flashman.  I suggest, that shooting fundamentals should be taught first with irons and then lead into optics.  I believe that a variety of optics should be made available.  Fight with any sight you can fight best with, whether it be Aimpoint, ACOG, Eotech, S&B, etc or irons.  I see the need for learning to effectively use iron sights as a need to know yourself, your weapon and how to fight with it.  

I agree that optics have a very low failure rate, but if it should fail I don't want to be SOL.  In all situations, I may not have an optic.  I don't have much experience with red-dot optics, but regards to to irons being useless at night, I don't agree.  Tritium inserts for irons effectively give your rifle night sights.  In no way are iron sights obsolete.  I am just stating that irons do have a place and shouldn't be ignored.  I agree with you though, proper optics can improve one's shooting and allow them to fight more effectively and should be made available, but learn to use your irons, too.


----------



## WogCpl (7 Jan 2006)

Flashman, just one question, wich combo would you rather have:
1. C-7w/ holo-sight
2. C-7 w/a vis & IR laser system of some kind & Iron sights.
I'll take the second combo every time.
i never said that optics dont have their place, but doing a section attack in winter can fog the old C-79 really bad,( i tend to breathe a little heavier conducting one in mucklucks) and having worn glasses all my life, no type of anti-fog ever works.
If you had optics on a weapon in winter and went into clear a heated building, what then?  Wearing glasses I live that one every day, (not the clearing a building part of course ) but i can always wear contacts!
So i guess you don't think that anyone should learn to shoot iron? Is room clearing done eaiser with a 3X or 4X(which is mentioned in one of the papers you highlighted) optic sight? 
Just my reg force wog point of view. (thought i'd point it out before you did)


----------



## flashman (8 Jan 2006)

Kal, perhaps I am - I took "I definitely think that optics are required in some situations, ex. long range shooting/sniping." this to mean that you didn't think they were required in other (all) circumstances as well.  I don't regard tritium inserts on long arm sights as being effective at night - I have used them and found them lacking, totally ineffective.  The only place I see irons being necessary is as a BUIS - you are right they shouldn't be ignored, but using them as a primary sight is just kneecapping yourself unnecessarily IMHO. 

FatwogCpl, 
I am not sure what point you are trying to draw out with your forced choice - but the way it's structured now, you're really making a comparison between LADs and optical sights.  In this case, my answer is the same - I'd rather have a holosight or aimpoint.  

Have you ever actually used a vis or IR laser?  Vis laser is ineffective in bright daylight, and even in better daylight circumstances it won't be visible at much more than 25m.  It also does not address the other many shortcomings of irons.  Your choice at present doesn't only give an effective daytime sight in the second option.  If doing dismounted section attacks in the winter fogs your optic... Well, to be honest, if that's the experience your forming your opinion on, I'd ask you to really examine how relevant that is to the current requirements of the CF, and if that very narrow circumstance really justifies forming an opinion that irons are more useful.    

I certainly didn't say that you shouldn't learn to shoot iron - not sure how you're getting that.  I did question the point that teaching someone to shoot on optics alone produces a worse marksman; two very different points.  
And of course no one would suggest using a 4x ACOG is the best tool for CQB - and it isn't supposed to be.  Although I would note that ACOG does not always mean a 4x  - they are made in 1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 5.5 x variants.  The 1.5x and 2x compact ACOGs may well indeed be the best all around combat optics at present.  

I really couldn't care less if you view yourself as a wog or not - it's impossible to tell here what sorts of experience people have had in civilian life, or what trades they may have been in the past.  For all anyone knows, you could have just done 15 years as an 031 and be on the receiving end of a med re-cat.  What does count is opinion formed on experience, and not conjecture. 
If you believe that irons are more useful as a primary sight, fill your boots.  I think however, upon exposure to other options, and the chance to try them out in varied circumstances, your opinion may be revised.


----------



## axeman (8 Jan 2006)

i remember the days when on the snipers course for the first 2 weeks of rangework you did not get the scope . this is to teach the student that in order to hit the target you must know about trigger and breathing control. errors are magnified  at range so you must have the basics down before you start making the leap to longer ranges and optics...  scopes are nice  but there are situtaions when they are a detriment ... newer shooters tend to get tunnel vision . i have dead friend because of this [C-9 scoped with other errors compunded but tunnel vision was a contibuting factor  in his death ]  but the shooting with scope is a learned trait , in battle type situations  this is what the cf trains for though. in order to have the best results useing the c79 scope on the c7 family of weapons you must put a lot of rounds downrange  but with the reduced bugets and decreased range time i dont think the members who need it the most are learning what they should be on the ranges.. more time must be spent on the ranges with the weapons in believable scenarios..  i dont thing the 1 a yr pwt cuts it ...


----------



## Kal (8 Jan 2006)

Flashman, what I simply mean is, for some situations optics are required, (example given).  For all situations though, optics are not required, but they are warmly welcomed.  If some shooters prefer and shoot better with irons, then they should use irons, in this situation optics are not required.  If the shooter prefers an optic and shoots better with an optic, then by all means they should use one and it is required.  The option to use an optic is certainly required.  I believe that shooting fundamentals should be learnt using irons first, then progress into optics, and let the shooter decide what they prefer to fight with.


----------



## darmil (8 Jan 2006)

Both ironsights and c79's have positive and negative sides.I think each soldier should carry a scope and a iron sight, change when you need too.I agree axeman the CF needs more range time 1 PWT a yr is not enough. :bullet:


----------



## WogCpl (8 Jan 2006)

I agree with Kal.
Flashman, you talk like you are the only one who has used this stuff before. As far as daylight shooting in my limited choices go, the iron sights would be for daylight engagments, vis laser for perhaps house clearing, and ir laser for night work. having friends on both the weapons and FCS side, we discuss these things often and one of the guys is a bit of a gun fanatic and owns a civi EO-Tech for deer hunting, says he likes it better than a scope,  i thought it was pretty cool also. i was most impressed with the IR/VIS LAD, what an awesome piece of kit. Slap on a pair of NVG's and away you go.
How about Tac lights, now that is something that is a little cheaper than a holo sight and a laser and makes a huge difference out to 25M.


----------



## KevinB (9 Jan 2006)

I think the majority of posters here have a very limited experience in working with optical sight in dynamic environments.

A RED DOT CCO (Close Combat Optic - EOTECH or AIMPOINT) allowes the shooter to look at the target and place the dot on it - aligning the system in one plane.

The C79 is a POS 

Using a Visible Laser is a BAD idea for primary sighting - it is fine as a tool when using a gas mask etc - but they are not reliable enough in lighting conditions - Irons are a dynamic BACKUP not a primary method.

Perfect Practice makes perfect and outside of DHTC that does not happen in the CF - the CF marksmanship and weapon skills are abomnitable.


Personally my favourite choice for an optic system is the Schmitt and Bender Short Dot 1-4x, PEQ-2B (not in CF service) or failing that the Insight 7500 (vis/IR combo of the PEQ-2A) , Surefire M952MU as a light.  Troy BIS.


----------



## flashman (9 Jan 2006)

FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> I agree with Kal.
> Flashman, you talk like you are the only one who has used this stuff before. As far as daylight shooting in my limited choices go, the iron sights would be for daylight engagments, vis laser for perhaps house clearing, and ir laser for night work. having friends on both the weapons and FCS side, we discuss these things often and one of the guys is a bit of a gun fanatic and owns a civi EO-Tech for deer hunting, says he likes it better than a scope,  i thought it was pretty cool also. i was most impressed with the IR/VIS LAD, what an awesome piece of kit. Slap on a pair of NVG's and away you go.
> How about Tac lights, now that is something that is a little cheaper than a holo sight and a laser and makes a huge difference out to 25M.



FWC, 
Not at all - but I do believe I have a good deal of perspective and experience with the options I am talking about; my opinions weren't formed through discussion or looking at a friend's deer rifle, but through actual use in static and dynamic shooting.  I presently run an Aimpoint M2, IOR M2, Leupold Mk 4 MR/T 3-9x and an ACOG TAO1NSN on various weapons, and have put a few hundred rounds through some and a few thousand rounds through others this past year.  I have also played with various kinds of iron BUIS, Trijicon Reflex (POS, ditched it quick), Holosight (excellent, but personal pref leads me to the Aimpoint) and other long rifle optics.  I do not pretend to be an expert - my level of training and continuing use pales in comparison to most others, however I feel that I have enough experience to form an opinion as to what is effective and what isn't.  

I'm not clear on what weapons lights have to do with optical sights/irons/lasers;  they are simply an aid to target detection and identification... not an aiming tool, nor a substitute for optics or LAD... different tool for a different task.  All three should be on the weapon, complimenting each other.


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I think the majority of posters here have a very limited experience in working with optical sight in dynamic environments.
> 
> A RED DOT CCO (Close Combat Optic - EOTECH or AIMPOINT) allowes the shooter to look at the target and place the dot on it - aligning the system in one plane.
> 
> The C79 is a POS



Very well put Kevin. I was trialing an Aimpoint M68 as used by the SF on the Colt M4s when I was posted to the SOI's SAW. Zero magnification with the red dot, and very nice to use. We had it on a Minimi (sneaking single shots or 2rd bursts the accuracy with the Aimpoint was exceptional), and it performed very well out to 300m. I had forgot my camera that day  

The C79 is in wide use here with the Gen 4 mount, and its used on a vast varierty of in service ADF weapons. There is mixed feelings about it, and I fully understand your POS feelings.

Being brought up on the FN C1 and the 1st Gen C7, I am a lover of iron sights, and I fully agree that soldiers should learn iron sights first, to get a grasp on the true principles and meanings of the word marksmanship.

Hang in there,

Wes


----------



## redleafjumper (13 Jan 2006)

The real key is a good solid base of marksmanship training, followed up with regular practice.  In my opinion the basics are best taught with iron.  The elements of good marksmanship are better learned by learning about basic sight alignment, proper holding aiming and firing.  Good breathing technique and focusing skills are all part of that.  Iron sights force a prospective shooter to nail the basics.  There are other skills required to use the variety of optical devices that are now in use, whether OEG, Aimpoint, just plain good glass with mil dot and other fancy recticles, or some of the other wonders that are now in use.  The basics always serve; and starting out on glass glosses over some of the basics.  Whenever I want to shoot well with glass, I always find it helpful to get out a .22 or centre-fire rifle with iron sights to put the world back into perspective before working the optics for long range work.  I use both and I like glass, especially as my eyes are ageing, but iron is still the best place to start.


----------



## DG-41 (13 Jan 2006)

> The elements of good marksmanship are better learned by learning about basic sight alignment, proper holding aiming and firing.



Agreed 100%. But I don't think that iron sights are any better at teaching this than glass, and I'll make the argument that a low-mag scope with a basic reticule (like the C79) is *better* at teaching this than iron sights are. In particular, because of the increased magnification, clarity, and visual resolution of the optical, I think it is easier to teach consistant point of aim, elimination of cant, breathing control, and trigger control than it is with irons.

The only exception I would make (off the top of my head) would be for competitive match rifle iron sights... but then you have a case of a specialized sight for a specialized target that isn't applicable to the sorts of targets we expect to engage.

DG


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2006)

I fully agreee with redleaf on teaching irons first.

  With an optic the novice soldier has the tendency to chase his wobble zone - which onyl served to open up the group.  With irons the wobble zone is less obvious (no magnification) and the soldier learns the baseline of marksmanship principles - plus he/she will never have a N/S scope (a huge issue with C79's).

 KD range practice and lots of it are the only way to learn marksmanship (add in lots of dry fire and lessons) irons are the simplest way to do that.  Secondly the back up to optic is irons and so it makes much more sence for the shooter to be familar with that system prior to moving on to other sighting systems.


----------



## Kal (13 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I fully agreee with redleaf on teaching irons first.
> 
> KD range practice and lots of it are the only way to learn marksmanship (add in lots of dry fire and lessons) irons are the simplest way to do that.  Secondly the back up to optic is irons and so it makes much more sence for the shooter to be familar with that system prior to moving on to other sighting systems.



   Didn't I say this like two pages ago?   ;D


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2006)

Dont Hate  ;D

 However I do firmly believe it is criminal to deploy or train beyond the basic with irons.
Our M4A1's have det irons (carry handle) and it does not look like US DoS will fork out for optics 
  (Morpheus32 incoming PM to ship my Short Dot and EOTECH 552...)


----------



## NavyShooter (20 Jan 2006)

I've kept my toes out of this discussion for a while...mostly 'cause I'm a sailor, and what does a sailor know about rifles and shooting anyhow, eh?  

But, I do strongly agree that learning to shoot with iron sights initially is a very good thing.  That's how I learned with the C-7, so my transition to the C-7A1 has been relatively simple.  Using optics as opposed to iron is a good thing, once you have the basics down.

Starting out with optics does not teach the basics of marksmanship as well IMO.

I won't wade into the combat optics debate, but will deffer to KevinB's wisdom on that.  He's there, doing that, and has the experience with a wide variety of optics to know what works best.  He's tested and proved what works for him.

The reality of the CF though, is that we're going to end up with equipment that, while good, is never going to be the BEST on the market, because we cannot afford it.

The C-79 Gen IV isn't the best.  But, it's still a bunch better than the Elcan was when it first came out, and when they work, they provide much better results than plain Iron sights.  

Canada was the first country to investigate attaching an optical sight to the M-16/C-7 type rifle.  Our A1 upper receivers have a different rail than the standard STANAG 1913 rail because they were developped and adopted 2 years before the 1913 standard EXISTED.

The CF has been working to get optical sights onto our rifles since the early-mid 1950s when the EX2 version of the FN was equipped with an optical sight for trials.  Then the Elcan Unisight was developped, a non-magnifying dot sight....the same sort of thing that companies are spending big $$$ on developing today, producing the EOTech and such.  

Anyhow, that's my .02 worth.  I'll defer to the experts, and carry on.

NavyShooter


----------



## KevinB (20 Jan 2006)

Navy - glad you chirped up. Even with your bluewater background you could teach the Army a thing or two about shooting...

I wil offer one comment though -- the CF arrived with the flatop via liason officers in the US who say what the USA where experiementing with it - we adopted the original Dick Swan (A.R.M.S.) flatop rail - the US refined it and now the M1913 Picatinny rail is a NATO standard.  99% of M1913 accessories will fit to Diemaco railed uppers and IIRC all 2000 year + production uppers are 1913.

 The first C7A1's I saw where at ARMEX 89 in Ottawa - Diemaco had milled the carry handles off and bonded a rail to the upper...

I do hope that DLR does continue to learn from operations, and more and more of the C8FTHB upper and EOTECH 552 "holosight" continue to be procured for operational forces.


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2006)

While it should not be the case, I figure that we will continue to get a lot of the kit we need for as long as we have "green" CDS' at the Puzzle Palace ... and said CDS is a field type of general. 
No offince to the flyboys but - things just didn't appear to be moving very fast when a blue suit was at the controls.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Jan 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> While it should not be the case, I figure that we will continue to get a lot of the kit we need for as long as we have "green" CDS' at the Puzzle Palace ... and said CDS is a field type of general.
> No offince to the flyboys but - things just didn't appear to be moving very fast when a blue suit was at the controls.



Remember things did not move fast for the Air Force with an Air Force CDS either.


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2006)

yeah..... but I figure that the fella just wasn't "pushy" enough and the Gov't chose not to listen to him IMHO

Now we have this fine General who hails from "the rock".... who can say no to a fella from the Rock?


----------



## Timberwolfe (13 Mar 2006)

This is the latest US army purchase the KAC M110 it is an AR type .308 sniper platform to replace the m24 It's good out to 1000M. The comment about the C-8 is way off the C-8 is a major POS the US call it the M4 and have discontinued purchasing this weapon because of all the shortfalls during operations. The main problem is the gas tube. HK has solved all the problems with the C-8 top receiver and calls it HK-416 But Canada has no intention of purchasing the HK modified receivers at this time but are well aware of the problems with the C-8.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Mar 2006)

Hey Timber, what are you talking about, the M4 or variants of such have been around for 40 years, back in the days it was called a CAR-15.

Why the hate for it. What do you think is it's weakness?

I have used the M4 on many occasions in all climates, and I have been involved it extensive rebuilds (100s upon 100s of wpns and I mean rebuilds from a stripped lower on up) of the system here in Australia, and been familiar with the system since 1978. I have heaps of confidence in it, and I would carry it anywhere in the world without complaint.

What are your credentials to give you the right to criticise it? Are you fitter/Armt qualified or what? I would not go bagging the weapon because of a few magazine articles or a few off the wall comments by people who have used it, and not cared for it properly. 

We (Australia) have used the M16 FOW since 1965, carried it in Viet Nam, Malaya, through out the twisted climatic conditions of Australia, and now are using the system with confidence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside form the usual hick-ups, the carbine is well recieved by all who carry it.

Hope to hear from you with some backbone info you have to back up your claim. lets see a list of why you think it is a POS, after all its just a short barreled M16, isn't it.

Warm regards,

Wes

EDITed for spelling, etc


----------



## KevinB (14 Mar 2006)

The C8 is not a POS - the Hk416 is not issue - they are limited item in use in the USASOC - CAG/Delta whatever we want to call them today.

The the M4A1 and M4 are still being issued as well - I happen to have a brand new M4A1.

  please STFU


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Mar 2006)

I had a C8 with EOTECH site from time to time on Roto O, I throughly enjoyed using that weapon, never had a single issue with it or it's reliability under "field" conditions, where are you getting that it is a POS???

I assume your using that stupid USMC thing where some soldier told his dad what he thought of all the weapons, I'm pretty sure that little gem of an Email had been debunked, or at the least many of it's conclusion have be refuted by BTDT on this site.


----------



## Timberwolfe (14 Mar 2006)

First of  all I am not talking about taking the M4/C8 out to the range with 60 rnds for  a 300m PWT. I am talking about the inherent problems that the weapon has under extreme firing conditions. During over beach OP’s ect. When the weapon is being used for sustained suppressive automatic fire. The M4/C8 was never designed to be a carbine. The main problem is with the gas tube system. (I will explain bare with me) when a round is fired the case expands under pressure and the bullet travels down the barrel. Once the bullet has left the barrel the case pressure is relieved and the case retracts, but because of the high rate of fire and the short gas tube the bolt actually starts traveling rearward before the case has retracted from the pressure. This is causing the bolt to break off the back of the casing and creat hard extractions and double feeds. These problems are occurring after 5/6+ mags of sustained automatic fire. Not so much a problem seen by the average soldier but a big one for the boys in the Delta Force, JTF, Seals ect. Second  the gas tube introduces carbon and hot gasses into the internals of the receiver. This causes carbon fouling and extreme heat build up. I personally experienced cook offs midway through my sixth 29rnd mag. And the weapon was far to hot to handle with out heavy gloves. When the aluminium receiver expands faster than the steel barrel it causes loss of accuracy. Then there is the magazine it is terrible at keeping dirt out. A big problem in sandy situations. Also the forward quadra rail system won’t hold zero after the weapon has experienced 200 rnds or so of automatic fire. The US army sent Heckler & Koch 10 M4’s and got them to tweak the bugs out as HK did for the Brits SA80. They changed the gas tube for a short stroke gas piston system (similar to the M14 system) which got rid of the carbon fouling and heat problem, designed a steel dirt tight magazine, reduced the rate of fire (which also made it easier to shoot on full auto) redesigned the Buffer and Spring assembly, and changed the barrel for a cold hammer forged type. The US Delta Force  has already been swapping out their M4 top receivers for the new modified HK416 receiver. Our Dwyer Hill boys will be following suit shortly. The US has a long term plan of replacing all there top receivers long & short as needed. These problems were easily rectified by HK but Diemaco (Colt Canada) was well aware of these troubles.


----------



## MG34 (14 Mar 2006)

Phew!! Nice cut and paste there I read that bullshyte article as well.  The piston uppers have shown no significant improvement over the direct inpingement system of the M16 series (to include Canadian,etc variants). As far as dumping hundred of rounds through a rifle,well get what any rifle/carbine will jam up and suffer a loss of performance due to the build up of carbon,and other crap. That is why we have LMGs/GPMGs to provide sustained fire. I see you are relying on second hand info and utter crap as your basis of reference,I suggest once again that you engage brain before posting.


----------



## Scott (14 Mar 2006)

From the Army.ca Conduct Guidelines



> You will properly attribute any quotes to the appropriate author or speaker.





> You will not post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this site.





> There are lots of discussions which take place on this forum in which either none or all of us are "experts" in some way (politics, rifles, etc).  It's great that we can all discuss the daily news and have civil debate on contentious matters, however these boards are no different than the real world, and if you provide information to back up your claim, you better be willing to give us some proof.  If you base your opinions off of hearsay and rumor, be prepared to be called to task when you use up bandwidth on this board to tell us about it.



Just in case some members need to refresh their memories.


----------



## KevinB (14 Mar 2006)

Mine...



Needless to say I think I have a bit more end user experience that you.  If you are so concerned - may a switch to the Mk262 Mod1 77gr ammuntion -- it is more accurate and has better terminal effects in people that M855/C77 does.


----------



## TCBF (16 Mar 2006)

The 855 is Lake City, who is BLH?

 ;D


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2006)

BlackHills

They make the 77gr Mk262 Mod1 for the military.

 Not only is is match accurate - but it is primo as a rodent killer


----------



## TCBF (16 Mar 2006)

Yeah, I think they are flogging their 'cosmetic' seconds in white boxes in every gas station in the Dakotas, by the look of it:

http://www.ak47.net/lite/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=272661

If I pick up any more Winchester LE 'Ranger' .223 brass at Spruce Grove, I'm going to have to start yard-saleing it.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2006)

Its great stuff -- I had a line on 5k back in Fla. -- but I waited too long  :'(

If I could think of a way to smuggle it back to CONUS - I'd be in heaven 
 - yeah Blake I'd brign you some too... ;D


----------



## redleafjumper (16 Mar 2006)

Blackhills makes good ammo; I picked up a batch a few years ago and it ran just fine.  Though, in looking at TCBF's picture, I might have to take a trip south to gas up!   ;D


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2006)

"TCBF thanks a lot for the info....I was looking thru the B-GL last night at work and it didn't have exactly what I am looking for."

- The response that is bound to elicit from other NCO's is:  "Uh-oh, what part did you BREAK or LOSE?"

 ;D

The situation: Tank Commanders Course 8502, CTC, NB.  I am coming off sentry at 0300.  It is early Dec in Gagetown, 2 feet (+) of snow, and cold.  Mother nature calls.  "Dang" I say, and walk around to the back of the Leo to pull the tail-tape out of the Tk/Inf telephone box.  I pull on the latch - the box does not open.

I pull harder - two hands:  no go.

This is serious: it is keeping me from doing my business, and sleep.  

I slip one of the elongated holes of the top bar of the SMG butt over the tel box handle, and use the SMG as a pry bar - it works.  I grab the tail-tape and snowshoe deeper into the harbour.

Come daylight, before I mount, I try to fold the stock of the SMG (19" folded - 27" extended, remember?).  

I can't.  It is bent.  A lot.  An AWFUL LOT.

I tie it up with 80 lb test cord from inside my helmet,  and see the gun plumber at the next rolling replen.  "I have a problem" I say.

"What?" he asks.  I show him.

"Did you get that caught in the turret?" (meaning while traversing - an automatic charge) he asks.

"No" I said, "Even better..." I explained the sit.  "Keep it hid until maintenance afternoon, and I will put on a new butt then" he said.

And I did.

And he did.


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2006)

LOL, LOL.... having been in CTC at that time of year... though not on Armd course - can appreceate that  Priceless - am certain that at 3AM you were certain the SMG was still in perfect working condition.


----------



## redleafjumper (19 Mar 2006)

What surprises me is that a Leopard doesn't have a pry bar...   ;D
Classic improvisation combined with a very nice save!


----------



## Franko (19 Mar 2006)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> What surprises me is that a Leopard doesn't have a pry bar...   ;D
> Classic improvisation combined with a very nice save!



It does...not the type required though. Forget about the spade as well...late at night, metal on metal....

Spray spray spray    ;D

Regards


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 May 2006)

I would guess by word of mouth/opinion considering that this guy is a CADET.

From http://forums.army.ca/forums/members/12648

Rank:  Seargent 
Unit:  2659 Artillery 
MOC:   
Mil Exp:  4 yrs


----------



## KevinB (3 May 2006)

Sigh...

The C8CT will outshoot and outrange a stock C7A1 - using Mk262 Mod1 77gr ammuntion.

IMHO what the CF should be using in both Handgun (Glock19) and Rifle 16" Midlength


----------



## Kal (3 May 2006)

Hey Kevin,  what's the length of that forend?  Did you cut it?

Just curious...


----------



## KevinB (4 May 2006)

Kal said:
			
		

> Hey Kevin,  what's the length of that forend?  Did you cut it?
> 
> Just curious...



Kal -- it was a handbuilt one from KAC by Dave Lutz (ret LCol USMC) the KAC VP for MILOPS.
 It was a rifle length URX cut down to a midlength (9") rail with small ears over the gasblock.
I saw a few rifle down at KAC and talked to Dave abotu all the features I wanted on a rifle -- and voila  
Douglas 1:7 Wylde Chambered Stainless Steel Match Barrel
KAC Flip Front Sight (out of the way of in-line Night vision)
S&B SHort Dot 1.1-4 Variable scope
KAC 600m BIS (with large aperate off 300m BIS)
PRI Gas Buster Charging handle (slightly larger grip surface and a large more robust body)


and the Glock19 is just perfect with nigthsights and the X200 light...





Wes -- we where all kids once -- I'm so glad the net was not around when I was a kid - or I would have shown my ass often....


----------



## Caleix (12 May 2006)

can anyone tell me if other P Res units have started to use the C7A2 yet?

Caleix


----------



## geo (17 May 2006)

C7A2s will go out to all ''field'' units. 
They will cycle in their old C7A1s and receive refurbished rifles.


----------



## KevinB (18 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> They will cycle in their old C7A1s and receive *"refurbished"* rifles.



Fixed it   -- other than green furniture, the worthless TRIAD and the C79A2 - the uppers are pretty much the same -- we got one that had a shotout barrel

The lowers had been restamped and done with a odd silverish annodizing job after the poorly done restamp.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2006)

Latest of the USSOCOM SOPMOD upgrades
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/taylor.pdf

P.S. Gus Taylor is a former SF Col - he had the first team in Iraq during the '91 dustup. He don't take s**t off no one, and he has the operator at heart - not the manufacturer.


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Jun 2006)

Huh, so they're going to put a mini red dot on top of the Elcan? I thought the Elcan was supposed to be instantly adjustable to 1x? Is the eye relief at 1x too limited?


----------



## KevinB (7 Jun 2006)

Lots of problems with it -- zero loss (go figure) and the red dot setting at 1x is not as easy to use as the designers thought.

  I "think" (based on rumour and innuendo) that the TA31DOC with get the nod after some more trials..


----------



## wcomp04 (16 Jun 2006)

Agree with you guys about 5.56mm rounds at long distance...I'm knew to this forum....found it by accident! In 'Nam we used Winchester 70's (7.62mm) and Browning 50cal (both scoped) for that role...saw tons of 100m hits! wcomp04@yahoo.com


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Jul 2006)

What ever happened to H&Ks version of the M4 they put out this year? Did they get their collective peepee's slapped for something?


----------



## KevinB (20 Jul 2006)

HK416 is in use with US SFOD-D, Asymetrical Warfare Group, OGA elements and Department of Homeland Security.
  It works very well...


----------



## starlight (30 Jul 2006)

I recently got the oppurtunity to look at one of those. sweet!!!! we would do well just to buy the mags for the things(The followers don't tilt and wobble like ours.)


----------



## KevinB (1 Aug 2006)

starlight -- I hate the HK mags - too heavy and they are too long for m16 mag pouches -- The CProducts stainless steel mags are half the weight USGI sized, and use the Magpul enhanced follower that is ages ahead of the HK design.  - While over in Afghan with the CF I used Magoul ehanced followers in all (21) of my CF mags (Labelle teflons) and had great luck.

Biggest problem in the CF is they (corporate they) do not accept/understand that mags have a finite lifespan and need to be replaced occasionally.


----------



## Red 6 (1 Aug 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What ever happened to H&Ks version of the M4 they put out this year? Did they get their collective peepee's slapped for something?



Colt lost their lawsuit against H&K & Bushmaster for copyright infringement on the M16 design. H&K is marketing the 416 to US law enforcement.


----------



## KevinB (1 Aug 2006)

Actually HK will ONLY sell to Federal agencies -- Homeland Defence being one of the more prominent.

No local or State LE...


----------



## Red 6 (1 Aug 2006)

I just talked to HK's western states rep the other day and they're taking orders for delivery of the HK 416 next year.  They had a demo model at the NTOA convention last year. HK sells lots of weapons to law enforcement agencies that aren't federal.


----------



## KevinB (2 Aug 2006)

Red - as I mentioned in PM,  for whatever reason HkD will not sell the 416 and 417 to non federal units.

I've spoke to a number of people in HkUSA and HkD - each give a conflicting answer -- some even promise civilian sale (even though that is against german law..)

Due to what I mentioned in PM -- I doubt that until Hk has a manufacturing site in the USA that they will be able to offer any systems to non Federal agencies.


----------



## Red 6 (2 Aug 2006)

I talked again today to Scott Wilson at HK LE Division and he told me they are making bids and taking orders for '07 delivery to LE agencies in the US. Maybe you're talking to people in HK's Military Division? They spun off their operations into separate divisions. If you're talking to the Federal/Mil Division, that's correct, they don't do business with non-federal agencies. The LE Division sells their products to civilian LE agencies.


----------



## Red 6 (3 Aug 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> This HK wouldn't be the same HK that told me they were getting a contract for Full rate production of the XM-8?



We'll just have to wait and see.   My organization has been doing business with HK since the 70's. They've always filled our needs efficiently and they stand behind their products. I'll stick to the intel from them.


----------



## Arty God (3 Aug 2006)

Here a question for you all, Does the C7-C8 still have a tumbling round or a standerd 5.56.  If it used a tumbling round it cand not be used in a sniper role


----------



## Loachman (3 Aug 2006)

"Tumbling round"?


----------



## KevinB (3 Aug 2006)

Arty God said:
			
		

> Here a question for you all, Does the C7-C8 still have a tumbling round or a standerd 5.56.  If it used a tumbling round it cand not be used in a sniper role



still?  HAS NEVER HAD IT ON THE PLANET EARTH...

and BTW English is a fundemental skill -- I have no idea what cand means -- I am guessing you meant can't / cannot


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Aug 2006)

Perhaps he means the tumbling of the round on impact with the body?

But if he means the round tumbles in the air, well then I haven't a clue what he is talking about.


----------



## Loachman (3 Aug 2006)

There were myths in the very early M16 days that the round tumbled through the air, causing horrendous wounds, and lots of tales about tumbling after striking leaves in Vietnamese jungles.


----------



## GAP (3 Aug 2006)

A lot of the tumbling stuff came from the lighter round tended to deflect when firing in jungle environment. Everybody was used to the 7.62 - M-14 round blasting through to the target, and the M-16 didn't always. When we were introduced to the rifle and rounds, we were told, correctly or incorrectly - I don't know, that the round was designed to be ever so heavier on one side so that when it hit a target it tumbled. All we could ever see, was it went and sometimes out.


----------



## KevinB (3 Aug 2006)

All boattail bullets yaw in human tissue.  The old 55gr M193 round is no exception.


----------



## Dmann (7 Aug 2006)

My first comments since I've been on the site so I haven't read way back on the thread but a ''tumbling round'' ???

I am a long way off from knowing it all, but I've been a reg force weapons tech for near seventeen years and the only term I've heard for tumbling in ballistics theory is what happens to a projectile after it comes into contact with an object along its intended flight path or no longer has the momentum to continue on its intended trajectory, lets say after missing its intended target for example, where the physical factors of the projectile along with environmental conditions during flight come into play. 

A ''normal'' C7 wouldn't be a very good choice for any sniper. There is a C7CT which is a sniper support rifle, although a side by side only the reciever assemblies would indicate that they are from the same family of small arms.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Aug 2006)

Arty God said:
			
		

> Here a question for you all, Does the C7-C8 still have a tumbling round or a standerd 5.56.  If it used a tumbling round it cand not be used in a sniper role



Hey Arty god, I think you've been sniffing too much cordite! That is if you are what you claim to be (former SGT MOC 021) ???? I don't know who has been filling you with such BS.

 :


Wes


----------



## paracowboy (7 Aug 2006)

okay everyone, I think the dog-piling can stop. I'm fairly sure that the dude meant 'tumbling inside the body'. Which, while not technically correct terminology, is how it used to be described. Let's give the guy a break, shall we?


----------



## KevinB (7 Aug 2006)

Dmann said:
			
		

> A ''normal'' C7 wouldn't be a very good choice for any sniper. There is a C7CT which is a sniper support rifle, although a side by side only the reciever assemblies would indicate that they are from the same family of small arms.



FWIW -- I've had rack C7A1/A2's outshoot C7CT's...


----------



## Dmann (8 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FWIW -- I've had rack C7A1/A2's outshoot C7CT's...


 Try an accuracy/grouping shoot outside of the 400m range with the same marksman on each weapon and you won't have the same results.


----------



## KevinB (8 Aug 2006)

Dude - MG34 and I have both tried on seperate occasions -- IF you swap scopes (the Schmitt and Bender off the CT on an A1 or A2 - you can do aboout as well with the non CT gun out to what ever range you want to shoot at.)  IF you pop a KAC trigger into the C7 (like the KAC one on the CT   ) you can get a lighter gun that shoots better.
We put a freefloat tube on a C7A1 and managed to get a 2lb lighter gun that outshot the CT -- the only advantage the CT has is due to the way CanTAC had to alter the Aze Utra Suppressor - it will not mate properly with any guns other than the C7CT or the C8SFW) 

The C7CT barrel profile is designed for a MG - not a sniper rifle -- and the tube on it is a boat anchor.


----------



## Dmann (8 Aug 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Dude - MG34 and I have both tried on seperate occasions -- IF you swap scopes (the Schmitt and Bender off the CT on an A1 or A2 - you can do aboout as well with the non CT gun out to what ever range you want to shoot at.)  IF you pop a KAC trigger into the C7 (like the KAC one on the CT   ) you can get a lighter gun that shoots better.
> We put a freefloat tube on a C7A1 and managed to get a 2lb lighter gun that outshot the CT -- the only advantage the CT has is due to the way CanTAC had to alter the Aze Utra Suppressor - it will not mate properly with any guns other than the C7CT or the C8SFW)
> 
> The C7CT barrel profile is designed for a MG - not a sniper rifle -- and the tube on it is a boat anchor.


 Then we're no longer talking about a ''rack'' C7 as was mentioned earlier!!


----------



## KevinB (8 Aug 2006)

True -- but plus 400m is a stretch for the C7CT (at least in an operation parameter).  My intial poitn was int eh 100-200 metre envelope that a rack C7A1/A2 can (and has) done just as well - same shooter same day.  I put a KAC F/A trigger in a C8SFW and with a TA01NSN ACOG - I had a system that could outshoot either inside 300m...

To take advantage of either a better round cough Blackhills Mk262 Mod1 cough needs to be procured.

 If they got rid of thw worthless TRIAD-II riser rail on the C7CT - fluted or decrease the diamter on the barrel, and ditched the adjustable gas block (oh yeah and added backup sights) the C7CT would not be the boat anchor that it is -- the thing weight 5lbs MORE than the equivalent US system (Mk12 Mod1) and the US system is more accurate.

My major bitch at the C7CT is the unneeded weight of the system -- fine for benchrest shooting -- but not for an operational sniper gun


----------



## paracowboy (26 Sep 2006)

does anyone know if thre's an M-16 variant with an integral suppressor, a la the MP5-SD? If so, how much more money (besides 'a lot') would one of those bad boys cost?


----------



## KevinB (26 Sep 2006)

Uhm the linky is odd  ??? -- please check where this got linked from para... 

Basically no -- some .300 whisper platforms and other big bore low vel platforms all about as lethal as a 30-30...


----------



## paracowboy (26 Sep 2006)

yeah, that was odd. Seems fixed now, though.

Too bad. I kinda like the idea of every C7 being integrally suppressed, right from the factory, although I know the costs would be astronomical. Still, rather than adding to the length of the barrel...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> does anyone know if thre's an M-16 variant with an integral suppressor, a la the MP5-SD? If so, how much more money (besides 'a lot') would one of those bad boys cost?



From what little I know, it would seem that suppressors have a fairly limited life and might be better to have tehm easily replaceable.


----------



## paracowboy (26 Sep 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> From what little I know, it would seem that suppressors have a fairly limited life and might be better to have tehm easily replaceable.


from the little I do, I agree. That's why I suggested the cost would be astronomical. As I understand it, the units that have the SD3 have to send their weapons to H und K to get re-barrelled, which I imagine is not cheap.

I was just curious if there was such an animal, and what it would cost. Figgered if anyone would know, it'd be someone on here, most likely Infidel.


----------



## TCBF (26 Sep 2006)

From what little I know - which is a lot littler than most - supressing the noise from sub-sonic projectiles (especially low powered ones) is more cost/weight effective than suppressing full powered service ammunition.   I understand the potential benefits of reducing muzzle blast, flash and recoil, but if noise is a by product of military efficiency in a SERVICE cartridge - so be it.

But, I am prepared to be educated. 

Tom


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2006)

Current military intended suppressor designs can outlast a barrel.

However integral suppressed weapons are primarily done to ensure that super sonic catridges are reduced in pressure via barrel ports to subsonic velocities.  This gives a reduced trajectory and a greatly reduced terminal effect.

The H&K MP5's barrels are machine pressed in - so one can do it in Regina at the RCMP depot - or send it to HK -- the Brugger and Thommet can for the MP-5SD series is not especially different - althought the morons in Canadian Border Services have made it extremely difficult for the systems to be brought for in Canada work in since they seem to feel the MP-5 barrel and the integral suppressor are different parts  : 

Reduction of OAL is best accomplished by a BOTB (back over the barrel) (also called a reflex suppressor) suppressor which telescopes over the barrel a portion of its length (although there are limits to the suppression and other issue with this design).


I will go on tomorrow...


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2006)

There are two general method of mounting current military suppressors, one or two point mounts.

Knight Armaments Company (KAC) is the primary suppressor used by USSOCOM on the M4A1 and Mk18 Carbines - it is a standard one point muzzle mount 
(see pic)


OPSINC has a two point mount using a screw on flash hide/brake and a barrel collar that the suppressor is tensioned against.  OPSINC 12th Model is the suppressor on the Mk12 (SPR) rifle in USSOC, and their suppressors are in use in other SOF's.
(see pic)


Both of those suppressors have endure a 30 thousand round endurance test in repeated 5k weapon trial layout.


*my camera battery died -- so I am charrging it and will take pics later.


The OPS INC 12th Model is an example as well of a BOTB suppressor as it comes back and some of its lenght is absorbed over the barrel so as to decrease weapon OAL yet still ensure proper suppression of both noise and flash.



WHY Suppress?
  Supression reduces weapon signature in both light and noise -- effectively making the shooter near impossible to detect visually or via crack/thump since the thump from the expanding muzzle gasses are contained, and the tgt only hears the crack of the suppersonic bullet (provided the bullet is still supersonic) after the bullet has arrive (or missed) and will not have the thump to determine direction or distance.
 Effective military suppressors provide aprox 25-50fps of freeboar boost to the "clean" barrel velocity (which in turn can raise or otherwise alter the POI versus un suppressed, but is often offset by the weight of the suppressor).

More to follow.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2006)

The De Lisle carbine is an example of a weapon with an integral silencer, but the cost of creating such an effective silencer was not only monetary (porting the barrel and building the silencer body over and beyond the barrel), but also in perfomance. The De Lisle has a reported effective range of 185m, the integral silencer makes the barrel over 2" in diameter and the thing is rather heavy and bulkey. (Some details can be found at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine)

Rather than add more bits to the rifle or replace the upper receiver with a new one mounting an exotic barrel, maybe we can achieve the same effect by fiddling with the ammunition. So called "captive piston" rounds exist for Russian pistols, where the energy from the propellent drives a piston in the casing which, in turn drives the bullet. The piston, and thus the gasses, remain at the throat of the casing after fireing, so the actual mechanism of the weapon does not change in the case of a recoil operated pistol. Mor on the technical stuff here: http://world.guns.ru/ammo/sp-e.htm

Since the C-7 and most other modern rifles are gas operated, the piston does not have to be gas tight (maybe a small venting hole in the middle), and of course, such a round will have less energy than a conventional round, but the main idea is you want to be "up close and personal", so rounds like this in Urban ops or in complex terrain woudl make sense, and the shooter can switch to magazines of regular rounds when targets are at long ranges or behind light cover. No solution is 100%, but there you go.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2006)

5.56mm relies on velocity as part of its mechanism of wounding -- especially in close.  I would fight any attempt to lower the velocity.

Suppressed 5.56mm sounds like .22LR (kinda) -- we dont need subsonic ammuntion or capabilties -- and I would suggest rather than look for a specific niche for that sort of requirement (at it can exist outside convention requirements) that then a specific platform be utilised to do so --Subsonic rifle rounds tend to be in pistol calibre effectiveness - it can be better then just to use a subsonic pistol (.45 230JHP for instance) for that role or even a crossbow with a poison filled bolt perhaps?

Back to the suppressor and mounts






The KAC mount has a index pin cut on the flash hider and is slightly longer than the M16A2/C7 standard flashhider 




But still can use the bayonet and BFA


The OPSINC 12th model (and most of the others)




On the brake itself a thread protector is removed and the suppressor is threaded onto the brake -- it buts up against the barrel collar (the silverish thing in front of the gas block).


The only negatives to supressing the M16FOW is the increased backpressure (higher port pressure - which results in a higher rate of fire, increased fouling, and a decrease in bolt round lifespan).


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2006)

;D -- dude I dont have Attention whore written on me for nothing  

I am trying to see if MG34 will allow to do up some of his Team Canada stuff into patches for the uniform and helmet  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Sep 2006)

I-6 thanks for the education 101 on suppressors, I am guessing that the idea is to reduce significantly the muzzle flash and sound, but not eliminate it entirely, making it easier to achieve, correct?


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2006)

Colin -- yeah -- bullet flight noise will make it impossible to get movie quiet anyway...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2006)

Thinking about the ammunition equation, much of the blast and flash is due to the excess gas expanding out the barrel. Has anyone studied the effectiveness of "short loading" an otherwise conventional round to reduce the amount of gas being expelled? The other question might be has anyone studied exotic powder chemistry to deal with these effects.

In a way this is a reprise of my earlier post, except dispensing with the mechanical means of eliminating flash and blast effects. (reduced terminal ballistics are noted).


----------



## TCBF (28 Sep 2006)

If the barrel was long enough, muzzle blast and flash would be negligable.  But, that's too long a barrel.  If you load the cartridge case with a propellant that is entirely consumed in a 20" tube and still gives you the same MV and ME, your time pressure curve is going to resemble a verticle line and convert your chamber into the world's most inconvenient fragmentation grenade.


----------



## T44D (30 Sep 2006)

Soldier of Fortune said:
			
		

> I was goin to say, slap a scope on that thing it it would probably make a good sniper rifle



The 5.56mm is an effective weapon calibre up to 300 metres....after that it loses alot of punching power........I was hitting targets with scope out to 7-800 metres, upon inspection of the target(Full Size Body-Rubber density) the projectiles had only penetrated the surface.

The Armies of NATO's decision to switch to the 5.56 in the Eighties was that a Soldier could carry more ammo. He could also lay down more fire because of the larger ammo load. But the biggest reason, was that if you wound an enemy, it takes at least 2 other soldiers to remove him from the battle field. The enemy are more apt to tend to wounded and also, if you kill their buddy it would only enrage them. Battles today are won through attrition not demolition of enemies numbers


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Sep 2006)

T44D said:
			
		

> The 5.56mm is an effective weapon calibre up to 300 metres....after that it loses alot of punching power........I was hitting targets with scope out to 7-800 metres, upon inspection of the target(Full Size Body-Rubber density) the projectiles had only penetrated the surface.
> 
> The Armies of NATO's decision to switch to the 5.56 in the Eighties was that a Soldier could carry more ammo. He could also lay down more fire because of the larger ammo load. But the biggest reason, was that if you wound an enemy, it takes at least 2 other soldiers to remove him from the battle field. The enemy are more apt to tend to wounded and also, if you kill their buddy it would only enrage them. Battles today are won through attrition not demolition of enemies numbers



My fellow EME brother,

Firstly, welcome to the site.

What type of ammo were you using? What twist of bbl, 1/7in, 1/9in, or 1/12in?  M193, SS109 or variant? Military or Milspec? Factory commercial? Reloads? Ball, SP? This does not sound like a military venture either.

Please back up you claims with more detail.

Standard 5.56 X 45mm FN SS109 penetrates US M1 steel helmets and flak jackets at 800m. M193 does not. The SS109 out performs it's lighter 55gr M193 predecessor by far. Thats from a stk std 508mm bbl, 1/7in twist.

The wound produced by the standard FN SS109 causes much more trauma to the human body than 7.62mm NATO and 7.62mm M43 ball ammo.

Canada, USA, UK, and Australia (and others) produce this variant of ammo, and its the stock standard in my 10 mags I have right now. I am fully confident that it will drop any threat without difficulty. In Iraq and Afghanistan our Australian Forces have had no problem sending the enemy to allah using this. Like all small arms ammo, it does have its limitations, with the US introducing a heavier 5.56mm bullet again recently. Search on here for it, and here is some info (Mk 262 Mod 0)

Personally, I'd rather be killing my enemies than wounding them. Enraging then EN if you killed their buddies?   Bring 'em on! Thats a new one, and I hope you're kidding us. After going on 31 yrs in two armies, I must confess, whoever told you that, or wherever you read that, well, they were talking out their arse. Sorry, but thats plain foolishness, in my opinion. 

Personally engaging targets up to 300m is not easy. On the move, running, body armour, overheating, adrenaline pumping, the noise of battle, smoke, exhaustion, general confusion, rds coming in, etc. The list goes on. 

Even firing at moving targets, yes well on the move at say, 70kph from a hatch ontop of a LAV, in heat excessive of 45C, with CVC helmet on, body armour, EPS 21 ballistic goggles, again adrenaline pumping, etc, well its tough to get a strike even at 40-50m (or less even) with short 3-5 rd controlled bursts, while under fire too. The real world is by far different than relaxing back at some range firing from a bench, or some range prac at a class rge in Wx on a sunny Alberta spring day.

I can understand not filling in your Unit, (as I have done too due to operartional necessity), but why can't you say what rank you are, we already know your Corps and MOC/ECN, thats much more of a give away than simple rank.

Arte et Marte,


Wes


----------



## KevinB (30 Sep 2006)

Thanks Wes


----------



## Big Red (1 Oct 2006)

Managed to procure any mk 262 in the IZ yet Wes or just going to stick with ss109?  If you're riding in the family hatch might you might want to trade for a belt of 5.56AP to turn cars off...

+1 on all the debunking of the BS that was posted ref 5.56


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Oct 2006)

No, I have not, seen the green tipped M885, that all, but in our F88C Austeyr carbines, only Aussie ammo is authorised, and  have plenty of that to go around. Howeverever the Marines are coming in thick inot the FOB, so I am sure I'll be examining some of this new ammo sooner or later, but not shooting it.

Regards,

Wes

PS - Good to hear from ya Hales!


----------



## shark (5 Oct 2006)

coyote said:
			
		

> I'm a little confused. I have been taught that the weight of the C7 is 3.9 kg and 4.4 kg with the 30 round mag. But than another instructor said it was 3.3 and 3.9. Which is it?



I know the Canadian DND webpage shows the C7A1 assault rifle at 3.3kg unloaded, 3.9kg loaded.   However a loaded 30 round mag is exactly 1.0 lb (0.45kg) (an unloaded mag is exactly 0.25 lb (0.11kg))  So a 0.6kg increase doesn't make sense.  

Colt Canada specs show the mass of unloaded C7A1 is 3.31 kg 
Add 0.45 kg for the loaded 30 round mag, makes it 3.76 kg total.

Question:  Does anyone know if I am OK referencing Colt Canada? (are they the main supplier?)


----------



## old medic (5 Oct 2006)

shark said:
			
		

> Question:  Does anyone know if I am OK referencing Colt Canada? (are they the main supplier?)



Diemaco was recently bought out by Colt, so yes.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (5 Oct 2006)

Loaded weight may include the ELCAN sight...

Edit
Actually no, because 3.3+.45=3.75 vice 3.9 and the ELCAN weighs more than 150 grams, so it probably comes down to an item manager reading some scales at an angle 10 years ago...


----------



## redleafjumper (5 Oct 2006)

Does the "unloaded" weight include the weight of the empty magazine?


----------



## DirtyDog (9 Oct 2006)

I'm quite unfamiliar with the C7 rifles and hoped to get a lot of info and opinions in this thread.  It wasn't until I had read some posts that I realised they were over 6 years old and that there were 50 pages to this thread!  Is there a more concise source of info regarding some of the subjects in this thread (possible replamenct, vs. m16/m4, variants, et.c).

Thanks and sorry if this post messes up this thread or if I am missing something.  It's just a bit jumbled, a lot to wade through and I don't have a lot of time on my shitty 28.8k connection.  Feel free to delete this after, was just hoping for a little direction.


----------



## Freddy Chef (28 Oct 2006)

40 year old training film/video.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1333359893

Interesting to see what has and hasn't changed.


----------



## Samsquanch (6 Nov 2006)

Good video... Thanks. Reminds me of high school but with usefull information. Is the bushmaster AR-15 very similar to the c7? Looks similar in photos. I know it is .223. saw a deal at a local gun shop wondering if it is worth buying. 
Cheers


----------



## Lerch (6 Nov 2006)

Samsquanch said:
			
		

> Is the bushmaster AR-15 very similar to the c7? Looks similar in photos.


... : There was a technical term that I heard a Sgt use when describing the improvements made on the C7 from the M16...what was it now?...ah yes, a shitload.


----------



## KevinB (6 Nov 2006)

Lerch said:
			
		

> ... : There was a technical term that I heard a Sgt use when describing the improvements made on the C7 from the M16...what was it now?...ah yes, a shitload.



 :

Well here is a hint ->STFU on stuff you know jack about.



Bushmaster makes a number of models that are near identical to the C7 and C8 series with the exception of the select fire feature.


----------



## geo (17 Dec 2006)

Cdn manufacturer of assault weapons has a limited appeal on the domestic market.

It was unavoidable IMHO


----------



## 17thRecce (30 Dec 2006)

That guy in the video should be told to keep his **** finger off the trigger when he's not actually firing the thing.  When the C-7 was modified for service in the CAF, there were 11 modifications to the basic M16 design.  It's been too long, I don't recall all of them.  Included were the arctic trigger, redesigned front handgrip, reduced height on carrying handle and redesign of the flash suppressor.


----------



## KevinB (31 Dec 2006)

17thRecce said:
			
		

> That guy in the video should be told to keep his **** finger off the trigger when he's not actually firing the thing.  When the C-7 was modified for service in the CAF, there were 11 modifications to the basic M16 design.  It's been too long, I don't recall all of them.  Included were the arctic trigger, redesigned front handgrip, reduced height on carrying handle and redesign of the flash suppressor.



Well actually all your comments where wrong.

The M16 series has an arctic trigger guard (which no one uses)
Standard M16A2 Flash Hider
M16A1 Carry Handle/Iron Sight
M16A2 Front handguard

Your 0/4


----------



## 17thRecce (31 Dec 2006)

Well, what do ya know?  Doubtless you know more.  It's been 17 years since we had the change-over classes and my memory isn't that great for that long ago.  I'll defer to the expert.


----------



## KevinB (31 Dec 2006)

I'm guessing you mean the SARP conversion course...

I did mine in 1989.  I remember the name of the course though  

  Specific differences in the CF C7/C8 from the M16 Series -- the only real one was the Cold Hammer Forged barrel, a "partial" difference was offering different stock sizes (Short - marked CS, was M16A1 length) Normal (M16A2 stock) and Long (a spacer was placed between the buttplate and the stock to extend the reach - usually for gorilla sized folk to do drill with.  The rest of the differences where picking and chosing parts of either the M16A1  or the M16A2 (rear sight/carry handle and fire control of the A1, safe, semi (R), and auto vice the Safe, Semi and Burst of the A2), with the A2 barrel spec (1:7 twist, 20" length, and the A2 5 ported flash hider - over the 6 ported "BirdCage" of the M16A1, Lower front take down pin well reinforcement of the M16A2, M16A2 plastic furniture.

Thats about the entent of it.


----------



## Redeye (1 Jan 2007)

I-6 - I'll totally defer to you as you are surely the expert - however from what I call reading somewhere on some black rifle website which was fairly comprehensive, the C7 came about as a "product improved" M16A1 - and there was a fair bit of collaboration in developing features for it that went into the M16A2 as they were somewhat concurrent.  Is it unreasonable to suspect that all the quoted changes made to the C7 vice M16s were from original models, which flowed at the same time into the A2?


----------



## KevinB (2 Jan 2007)

RedEye -- the C7 is based off the M16A1E1 (M16A2) the A2 desgin was finished by the time SARP rolled around.  Colt actually had the nerve to have a bill for "adding" some of the M16A1 features back to the C7...
  Canada asked (and did not receive) for permision to make a heavy throughout barrel - but Colt did not accept that and the M16A2 profile barrel was kept.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jan 2007)

17thRecce said:
			
		

> When the C-7 was modified for service in the CAF, there were 11 modifications to the basic M16 design.  It's been too long, I don't recall all of them.  Included were the arctic trigger, redesigned front handgrip, reduced height on carrying handle and redesign of the flash suppressor.



Firstly, welcome to the website, but please know your subject matter before you post.

I am sure this has come up somewhere in here already, as I feel I am about to repeat myself, ha!

The C7 was never modified for initial service, it was the finished product of SARP, and adopted as such by the CF, although things changed along the way, the introduction of the C7A1 about 1993-4, plus that thing of a C7A2.

However we are talking the early days, the C7 rifle, nothing more right now. So, back to about 1990.....

C7 c.1990

Here we go.....

In August 1982 we knew what direction the CF was taking in SARP. FN Herstal's FNC, the Dutch MN1 (Dutch copy of a Galil), and the US Colt M16A2 were the rifles trialed by the CF. The A2 won out.

The rest is history.

The overall only few differences between the Colt M16A2 and the Diemaco C7 (1991) yes, the stocks come in different sizes, Kevin has got it covered.

flash supp - US M16A2

std 508mm bbl 1/7" twist - M16A2

front sight, originally M16A2, but CF wanted a finer round one - unique to the CF

upper reciever - same as M16A2 including caseing deflector (carrying handle height 100% identical to the M16 FoW - never EVER changed)

rear sight mounting system -  same as M16A1, but of a CCB/low light and 200m appetures (unique to the CF), as opposed to near/far type on the original M16A1  

lower reciever-  S-R-A only (no burst), built up around take down pin for more sturdyness, same as M16A2

handguards - same as M16A2

slip ring - same as M16A2

arctic trigger -its ALWAYS been there since 1965

pistol grip - same as the A2

butt - comes in sizes, unique to the CF at the time, aside form that, the butt is the same as the M16A2

butt plate -  same as M16A2

cleaning kit - unique to Canada

magazine c.1990 - plastic 30rd 'GAPCO' but Cdn made - replaced in the early - mid 90's by generic US alloy 30rd mags.

BFA - unique to Canada

sling - US copy

bayonet - a Cdn version of the US M7 (US M3 trench knife, US M4 M1 carbine, US M5 M1 Garand, US M6 M14, the blade design has been around since 1943) design with a new (cheaper) scabbard. There are a few diff's, mainly the frosted stainless, and uses only one generic grip for both sides, the M7 has a different grip for each side. New C-2000 types are now in the system. No, they are NOT made in Canada, but in the UK, not Germany. Thats comes right from Colt Canada.

I was on the Australian national rebuild program, making many US M16A2's and even M16A1's (and even combos there of too), plus my knowledge from the CF and SARP, so please understand, I know where I am coming from.


Regards from Baghdaddy,


Wes


----------



## KevinB (2 Jan 2007)

Thanks Wes, its nice to hear from the horse' mouth, I was just an end user with an interest.

BTW -- BigRed's H&R M16A1 is having some issues with its autsear (hole elongation) -- I put a KNS pin into it - and it seems to have fixed the issue for now -- but I dont suppose you know anyone in the IZ that can do annodizing?


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jan 2007)

Can't say I do (we are still trying to round up some pool chlorine for our home made 8 seater spa - war is hell eh  ;D), usually any longated holes in lowers usually spells out a destruction order. Your pin is a quick fix, and fine for an operational mod. That H&R is VN vintage, and for around 40 yrs of wear and tear is a good run, especially on an alloy reciever.

Maybe time for a new lower, and keep the old one as a backup.

Hope the NY came in quiet for you up north. Here from 0002 to 0020 it was madness here, til the gunships were airborne, then those endless trails of tracer stopped ( I wonder why, ha!). Some of shooting coming from as little as 100m away, and striking a tad close. There must have been something going on, as two CH47s landed about 500m away, and then took off after a few minutes. Don't know if the Yanks were rehersing for something, or if there was something else underway. Either way, aside from that 'odd angry shot' and blip or three from a PKM, it was silent. I crashed about 0130, after being social with the lads.

Hey, I broke the 100 mark recently! One more day down means one more day closer to home. Hopefully we'll RV in a couple of wks.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (2 Jan 2007)

I know a bunch of anti Jaysh Al Madhi hits went down.  As well as some Anti-Sunni stuff in the bottom of the triangle.
However its pretty quiet where we are.

I was debating bringing in a bunch of 80% lowers and drilling them here -- then coating them -- not idea, but our contract are issued Sig552's and several of us choose to run the M16FOW so when guns wear out -- we have to search and scrape for them.


----------



## PhilB (3 Jan 2007)

Hi guys just quick question, as my search fu is weak to non existent today. With the C8HB/SFW whatever you want to call (the C8 they are issuing in the ghan) do I need to buy a carbine or mid-length rail system? Just curious because I remember reading something about it being a mid length but I am not sure. Just don't want to buy something and have it not fit. Thanks.

Cheers,

Phil


----------



## KevinB (4 Jan 2007)

Carbine.


----------



## themuckler (29 Jan 2007)

so here goes my two cents. as a soldier that has actually used the C7CT combat, while sort of. for you see the optics are way better then that of the c3 but the range and power are really lacking. which causes major problems when you are looking to dispatch some sorry piece of trash in one shot. the CT is just a tricked out c7 that some hammerhead thought would be awesome in an infantry section because of the presicion that it offers but a section in combat, and i know this for a fact, never has the time employ a weapon like this that takes way to much time to aquire targets because in the heat of combet all you want to does it put up that wall of bullets and close the distance on the enemy. 

as for the C7, its a great weapon with a lot of options but a heavy barrel is what it needs and dont forget to get some ammo that is lethal beyound 150m.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Jan 2007)

themuckler said:
			
		

> as for the C7, its a great weapon with a lot of options but a heavy barrel is what it needs and dont forget to get some ammo that is lethal beyound 150m.



??

Lethality only to 150 metres?

5.56 x 45mm SS109 NATO STANAG 4172 rated ball? Whatever happened to peneterating flak jackets and steel helmets at 800m? Thats with a stk std 508mm bbl, 1/7 RH twist a la M16A2 c.1982. 
  
Thats a new one, and the first I've heard of it loosing it punch at such a short range.

The US have developed a heavier 5.56mm rd, the US Mk 262 Mod 1. 77gr in projectile weight, vice the old US M193 55gr projectile as used in the 1/12 RH twist M16A1 bbls. The SS109 compatable 5.56mm projectile weight is 62gr. Kevin can fill us in on all this techo specs stuff, but try searching for it first on here. The new ammo is here in theatre being used right now with much success, but having SS109 inferior lethality range only to 150m, in ammo which has been proven elsewhere and in the CF system alone in over 20 yrs, I find that hard to believe. Are you sure it was not the operator?


Regards,

Wes


----------



## McG (30 Jan 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Hi guys just quick question, as my search fu is weak to non existent today. With the C8HB/SFW whatever you want to call (the C8 they are issuing in the ghan) ...


Is the C8HB the same as the SFW, or has the C8HB been shortened to match the length of the standard C8?


----------



## KevinB (30 Jan 2007)

The C8SFW is the C8FTHB - the only difference is the SFW comes with the KAC M4RAS.


----------



## McG (31 Jan 2007)

Ack.  I am aware that the HB is the SFW barrel, but what is the length that it has been cut to (37 cm or 41 cm)?


----------



## KevinB (31 Jan 2007)

C8SFW/FTHB barrel is 16.1" not including flashhider

whatever that is in MM or CM

The C8 is 14.5"


----------



## Roy Harding (31 Jan 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> C8SFW/FTHB barrel is 16.1" not including flashhider
> 
> whatever that is in MM or CM
> 
> The C8 is 14.5"



16.1" = 40.8 cm (41)

14.5" = 37.83 cm (38)


----------



## KevinB (1 Feb 2007)

Nope my retirement was before 20 -- but I knew you had completed at least 20.
  According to my NDI 75 (I had to look at it) it alledges 16 or 17 years of honourable service  ;D (depending on how you view the dates)
(and depending on who you are in the PPCLI mafia will depend on how honourable you think my service too)


----------



## Trooper Hale (4 Feb 2007)

or as we say down here, "16 to 17 years undetected crime". Keep it up I-6!


----------



## Adrian_888 (18 Feb 2007)

Hey anyone here know were online one could find a detailed diagram of the C7 with all parts listed?  They don't seem to have a detailed enough one on the Dymaco website or anywere else i look. I don't know if it matters much as far as parts go, but This the older C7.  I need to know this stuff couse I'm doing BMQ right now and we just got little crappy diagrams of some spots on the rifle.  This would be really helpfull, i could even print some off for my some of my buddies on course.


----------



## Justacivvy (19 Feb 2007)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Hey anyone here know were online one could find a detailed diagram of the C7 with all parts listed?  They don't seem to have a detailed enough one on the Dymaco website or anywere else i look. I don't know if it matters much as far as parts go, but This the older C7.  I need to know this stuff couse I'm doing BMQ right now and we just got little crappy diagrams of some spots on the rifle.  This would be really helpfull, i could even print some off for my some of my buddies on course.



Weapons Aide Memoire


----------



## ProPatria031 (20 Jul 2007)

what is the best way to go about cleaning the trigger mech without the luxury of hot running water?

 :cheers:


----------



## Trooper Hale (20 Jul 2007)

Having time on your hands and a tooth brush...


----------



## ProPatria031 (20 Jul 2007)

thanks a lot hale. yea i know what you mean by a lot of time :rofl:

 :cheers:


----------



## Trooper Hale (20 Jul 2007)

Seriously though, a bit of oil and lots of love should see you through. And old father time of course


----------



## kayakguyt72 (14 Oct 2007)

It seems to me that there is quite a bit of chatter on the C7 as a 5.56mm sniper rifle.  The ballistics of the 5.56mm round don't lend well to it being used as an effective sniper rifle, not to mention the lack of stopping power.  However, that being said, the the precision of the C7 with an adequate scope does lend itself well to be employed within a rifle section/platoon as a sharpshooter as opposed to sniper rifle.  Food for thought.


----------



## MG34 (14 Oct 2007)

Actully there are several Special Purpose 5.56NATO rifles in use, but they as a rule do not shoot standard ball rounds, only in Canada do we do that with the C7CT which makes a marginal system worse. Google is your friend, look up SPR MK11 Mod0 or MK12


----------



## DirtyDog (14 Oct 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Actully there are several Special Purpose 5.56NATO rifles in use, but they as a rule do not shoot standard ball rounds, only in Canada do we do that with the C7CT which makes a marginal system worse. Google is your friend, look up SPR MK11 Mod0 or MK12


Just curious as why the C7CT is worse?


----------



## kayakguyt72 (14 Oct 2007)

Thanks MG34, I just spent a bit more time reading up on the C7CT and the SPR variants as you suggested.  It seems to me that a 5.56mm sniper rifle might have merits in certain respects, but I still see it only as a sharp shooting rifle in a conventional context.  Now if we were to step out of the box, it might be well served in a SOF environment where there is greater consideration to collateral damage and engagements can be at considerably reduced ranges.  That being said, perhaps there is a role for the C7CT as the number two's weapon in a sniper team.  In my experience the number two is still looking for the higher caliber rifle anyway.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Oct 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Just curious as why the C7CT is worse?



He said it was marginal......standard ball amunition degraded it further from that


----------



## DirtyDog (14 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He said it was marginal......standard ball amunition degraded it further from that



Ah, OK.  I though he was saying the C7CT variant made a marginal system (5.56 C7) "worse".


----------



## geo (14 Oct 2007)

Heh.. even with the old FN C1 we had "match" ammo that exceeded the standard ball rounds everyone else used.


----------



## TCBF (14 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Heh.. even with the old FN C1 we had "match" ammo that exceeded the standard ball rounds everyone else used.



- Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, 168 grain HPBT.

 ;D

- i think...


----------



## Danjanou (14 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, 168 grain HPBT.
> 
> ;D
> 
> - i think...


yeah that sounds about right to this mess tin addled brain  >


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Oct 2007)

Yes, the US match 7.62. Used it in our 8L's on some competition shoots, leading up to CFSAC (1982). However, the majority of training for this was with the IVI C21 ball.

Outside of that even at Connaught, we used IVI 7.62mm C21 clipped in our 8L's. Remember those rubber 'peel away' bandoleers??? I guess I am dating myself.

The US match ammowas for the C3. White boxes with the US eagle on them, and was for sure LC (Lake City) made.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2007)

US Ammo was in all likleyhood Lake City M118 173gr Special Ball, the M852 168gr came around a little later - I dont recall any with the C1A1 or C3 shoots (I've been wrong once or maybe twice before though  ;D )

  The US Mk262Mod1 77gr SMK BTHP is an outstanding round both for accuracy and terminal effects downrange.  The BS that is stoppoing conventional parts of the CF from using it is revolting.


----------



## geo (15 Oct 2007)

Match ammo was indeed Lake City.
Used @ CFSAC in Connaught.


----------



## TCBF (15 Oct 2007)

- Found lots of Lake City brass as well as plated 5.56 NATO cartridge cases at a local range used by various LE and agencies.  New headstamps - 04, 05, etc.   Some BHA Match as well.


----------



## KevinB (16 Oct 2007)

Most of the new production Mk262 is loaded by BH in LC casings


----------



## DirtyDog (25 Oct 2007)

I noticed all (or atleast most) of the 3-08 OMLT personnel are training with C8A2s. (C8FTHB).  Not sure how many have been issued on past rotos, but these ones have seen the sandbox (judging by their various paint schemes).


----------



## Kendrick (29 Oct 2007)

Well if it's anything like us, C8's are going to be for office jockeys.  Infantry types don't need them apparently.


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2007)

Kendrick
With the C7A2s, the office jockets have, for all means and practical purposes, a C8


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Nov 2007)

If you are really interested in more information, try PMing this fella 48thHighlander.

I have a feeling he has a very intimate knowledge of the Company and this particular weapon  .

BTW, the gent in charge of the deveopement, is a Canadian, and former weapons tech with a very very cool Highland regiment.

dileas

tess


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2007)

The future...


----------



## MG34 (28 Nov 2007)

Nice toys Kev, but why do you insist on posting pics of your airsoft collection?? ;D


----------



## TCBF (28 Nov 2007)

The shortie does not appear to have a DIEMACO upper.  The arrogant HK-type sights being the giveaway.  Details?


----------



## KevinB (28 Nov 2007)

Hk 416 both 10.5 and 14.5  (in 6mm BB for Gerry  ;D)

 As much as I dont think we as a whole need the gas piston -- it seems to be the latest rage, stripping the Hk's to the LWRC gives you a clear vision of the fact you get more for your $1780 (full gun from Hk) than you do with your $1700 gun from LWRC...

  The Hk upper is about $1100  - with the rail and sights (I dislike the sights BTW)  - I still think they botched the hookup for the Hk GL -- but much better than a Diemaco mount to the SFW...


----------



## Armymedic (28 Nov 2007)

Kev, 
That shorty looks cool, but is kinda useless without some sort of suppressor on it. And an holo sight (EOTech) would be a better sight for it.


----------



## KevinB (29 Nov 2007)

Cough Holosight -- I'll be out to sell you guys on Aimpoint soon enough... 
  Surefire cans are down South...


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Nov 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Hk 416 both 10.5 and 14.5  (in 6mm BB for Gerry  ;D)
> 
> As much as I dont think we as a whole need the gas piston -- it seems to be the latest rage, stripping the Hk's to the LWRC gives you a clear vision of the fact you get more for your $1780 (full gun from Hk) than you do with your $1700 gun from LWRC...
> 
> The Hk upper is about $1100  - with the rail and sights (I dislike the sights BTW)  - I still think they botched the hookup for the Hk GL -- but much better than a Diemaco mount to the SFW...


How have they performed (your gas pistons)?


----------



## Eggy (29 Nov 2007)

The Dutch Marines use it. The Dutch Army has the FN minimi for this role.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

New M249 PIP does not have a mag feed option (thank god)
   The C9A2 project is dead -- when Diemaco was sold to Colt, and became Colt Canada  - the rights to produce anything from FNH disappeared - Colt is an FN competitor - and FN was not allowing its TDP for the C6 and C9 to remain there.
*yes genius to allow that to happen - so Canada will get no new parts from Diemaco/Colt Canada for those guns - nor barrels etc. (rocket science)

The A2 barrels where an annomoly as they where just chopped C9 barrels -- they had the C9 flashhider put back on after the barrel was recrowned and threaded.  The Mk46 and M249 Para have a different thread and different flash hider.
   
The A2 stock was a copy of the Stoner 63 stock in the folding mechanism - and the standard C8 stock added -
- the US via FN now makes a Para stock like this - but with a checkpiece to improve the fit. (without the folder ability).

Not a lot of sense to buy a new C9 now -- the CF ones never had the hydralic buffer from the US M249 contract  (which is why ours wore out at less than half the round count...)  Your better off buying a Mk46 - as it has an intergral RAS - and getting an extra Para barrel (they are heavier) - it has no mag feed option (a good thing IMHO).
  However the M249 has always been a "disposable machiengun" - they have a short service life due to the design.


----------



## DirtyDog (30 Nov 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> New M249 PIP does not have a mag feed option (thank god)
> The C9A2 project is dead -- when Diemaco was sold to Colt, and became Colt Canada  - the rights to produce anything from FNH disappeared - Colt is an FN competitor - and FN was not allowing its TDP for the C6 and C9 to remain there.
> *yes genius to allow that to happen - so Canada will get no new parts from Diemaco/Colt Canada for those guns - nor barrels etc. (rocket science)
> 
> ...


Wow, I had no idea.  I was through the Colt Canada plant several months ago and I remember then going on about the C9A2.  How many were produced before FN put an end to it?

Also saw quite a few C6s in for refurbushing, but then I guess that was the tail end of them.  

Does the CF have any tentative plans for a replacement LMG?  I can see our C9s getting old real fast (those that aren't already).


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

Colt Canada will continue work with parts in inventory -- but nothing new.
  I'm out of the system - so I cant comment on who many or what will occur


----------



## geo (30 Nov 2007)

Given that Colt Canada has lost the one advantage that Colt didn't have.... certain rights to FN technology, how long do you imagine before that plant shuts down and they move everything down to the USA?

At present, I do not see any advantages that would keep em here (other than servicing our C7/C8s + C6/C9s while parts hold out).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2007)

I-6
Didn’t they hold patents and processes that were not available to Colt, beside the FN stuff? The heavy barrels and methodology of manufacture was quite different than colt had if I remember one of your comments long ago?


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

The Canadian gov't owns the barrel machines...  The heavy barrel are not unique -- in fact nothing is unique -- KAC, FN and Wilcox have the same barrel machines in the US (and I think two others but no proof) - 

  Canada will NOT (they better not) allow all our Small Arms capability to leave.   i wonder what will happen when the next SARP comes up -- I think Canada ROYAL f'd up byt the number - and when Devtech-Heroux wanted to spin Diemaco off -- they should have made it a crown corp.

    Colt Canada has a lot of talent -- even some of it beign misguided -- but it is criminal to allow us to lose control.

What happens when the next SARP winner is not a Colt creation (the M5, LE1020 piston guns not looking healthy to me) -- but a FN, HK or Magpul etc desgin?
   Who builds it in Canada then????????????


----------



## geo (30 Nov 2007)

I'm with you on this Kev... I'm just not convinced that the Cdn Gov't has the longterm vision to prevent Colt from folding up the tent and changing addresses.  What incremental business is there at Colt Canada that Colt USA can't provide?  Now that all FN licences are nul and void, not much keeping them here IMHO.

The same way as we have flushed our Maritime architectual design & engineering capabilities over the years - forcing Cdn born & grown talent to do something else OR go elsewhere to practice their trade.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2007)

Colt currently is at max production -- a lot of their weapons sold in the US are made in Canada.

   Even if they packed up they dont own the bbl machines -- so either the Cdn gov't could rebuild Canadian Arsenals/Dominion Arsenals (my prefered choice) or another manufacturer could come in and setup shop.
  I am truly worried that DRL 5-5 will skew the Colt SARP enterants and justify it with ease of entrance to the market.
Hk teamed with Wilcox Industrues to get their Hk416's made "on shore" - given the relatively small Cdn market (80,000 mil weapons roughly say ) I dont know if it is worth it for anyone (HK or FN) to move in.  And given US technological issues with US firms (the End User issues for Diemaco/Colt Canada) even on weapons made in Canada - it would not likley worth it for another firm to move up.

  The question is whether or not the Foreign sales (Canada, Europe) for Colt that Colt Canada handles are worth it in the long run after the current contracts expire.
Regardless of my American loyalties -I dont think it smart for any country to allow themselves to be utterly dependant upon another ( - even a good friend) for weapons.  Canada is already in a headlock for a lot of high end mil kit (night vision, ir lasers and suppressors) best not allow the basic tool of the soldier to be controlled as well.

 I think the CF, DND and the Cdn Gov't dropped the ball on this one.

I would never adopt the Hk system w/o full Canadian production and control of distribution inside the cdn border -as you never know when the German gov't may pull the plug to try to control military options, same goes for FN/Belgian issues.


----------



## DirtyDog (30 Nov 2007)

No matter how much sense it makes, or how it was sold, I could see the goverment of Canada getting into the small arms game as a bad headline ill recieved, for what ever retarded reasons, by the public in this country.  Maybe I'm just pessimistic.


----------



## TCBF (1 Dec 2007)

Sir Charles Ross, where are you when we need you?

 ;D


----------



## geo (1 Dec 2007)

Then again, you get a crown corporation that produces something like the SA80 and the Army seems forced to make use of it....... 

Well - except for their SF who came a knocking on Diemaco's door.


----------



## Tuukka (4 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The future...



Kev, whats up with the 5.56 mm only ?


----------



## KevinB (4 Dec 2007)

Bugger - I should have guessed you'd show up here and upstage me.

 From what I've seen of the 417 it will be the DM standard... (I say with a heavy heart on my KAC goodies)

but I see your still stuck with the cheezy HK flip up off the gasblock -- not good with the ported blocks on the longer than 10.5 guns - and the 10.5 really should have a robust front sight anyway.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Dec 2007)

You two should get a room already.


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> From what I've seen of the 417 it will be the DM standard... (I say with a heavy heart on my KAC goodies)


So better then an m110?


----------



## KevinB (4 Dec 2007)

No 7.62mm gas guns do well in the amounts of rounds that seem to be getting asked of them these days.

  I love the M110 and Mk11 series rifles don't get me wrong -- but a 16" and 12" Hk417 work way better longer, and even in the 20" gun catagory the addition of a can to the Mk11 will make it choke quicker than the 417.
   The early 417's I saw where not quite a Mk11 in accuracy - but I've been told they have fixed that.

Its a young system - and by the time the next SARP program is looking for candidates I think the 416/7 guns will do well -- especially since everyone (other than MG34 and I apprently) seems to think everyone needs a piston.

 The Mk16/7 SCAR-L/H rifles have a leg up - but the commonality of the lower from the C7A2 and C8 could make it a easy swap for Canada.

Depends on how much life the lowers have left in them.


----------



## blacktriangle (4 Dec 2007)

I6,

How much would it cost per soldier for the regs to get weapons decked out like that? I know it wont' happen, but care to ballpark?


----------



## KevinB (4 Dec 2007)

Mil/LE cost is around 1100 for the upper from Hk complete with 1x worthless "High Reliabilty" extra weight mag and the fixed sights (either 14.5 or 10.5). Manual, and buffer and spring (the standard issued H2 buffer spring dont work well with the Hk's)

S&B Mil/LE pricing in somewhere in the neightbourhood of $1600 for the ShortDot
Aimpoint pricing for the M3 on the 10.5 is around $300 (Mil pricing)
Mounts - not sure I got them free - I have no idea what the cost is to mil versus the base line retail

NVEC Atilla-200 - I would guess the benchmark is close to the Insight PEQ-2A and near $1000.

Besides who say the reg army does not get blinged out guns...


----------



## blacktriangle (4 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Mil/LE cost is around 1100 for the upper from Hk complete with 1x worthless "High Reliabilty" extra weight mag and the fixed sights (either 14.5 or 10.5). Manual, and buffer and spring (the standard issued H2 buffer spring dont work well with the Hk's)
> 
> S&B Mil/LE pricing in somewhere in the neightbourhood of $1600 for the ShortDot
> Aimpoint pricing for the M3 on the 10.5 is around $300 (Mil pricing)
> ...



Point taken, and thanks for the info. Anyone want to bet what year the C7/C8 will be replaced, lol.


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> S&B Mil/LE pricing in somewhere in the neightbourhood of $1600 for the ShortDot


How does one go about getting a Mil/Le discount like that (huge) for a short dot?  Or are you talking on like a unit purchase?


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2007)

That would be unit purchase.  S&B USA does a MIL/LEO individual purchase -- Wolverine Supplies is the Cdn Dist and as far as I am aware he does not...


----------



## Tuukka (5 Dec 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Bugger - I should have guessed you'd show up here and upstage me.
> 
> From what I've seen of the 417 it will be the DM standard... (I say with a heavy heart on my KAC goodies)
> 
> but I see your still stuck with the cheezy HK flip up off the gasblock -- not good with the ported blocks on the longer than 10.5 guns - and the 10.5 really should have a robust front sight anyway.



Yep, those sights were on when they arrived. I will also have to change the grips to Ergo grips or something similar.

The 417 is very shootable and with the can on, the perceived recoil was cut to approximately half. On Monday I did shoot a few groups before the darkness set in and we started to test some flash suppression issues with several weapons, but it was pretty dark even by then. I will go out later this week and take some Lapua Scenar ammo also to test, but obviously the 12" upper isnt really a target type upper.

My personal guess also is that barring any long term issues with the 417, it will gather good popularity among end users, several European countries have already tested it and will adopt it into use.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Dec 2007)

Soldier of Misfortune....you are treading on dangerous ground, you are trying to spar with personnel that have used this weapon in combat. You are so far out of your lane I guarantee you will not know what hits you when some of the more vocal members read "your opinion". Do yourself a favour and duck now and read more, post less on subjects you have never personally experienced and you might learn something. You can learn a lot from these folks if you realize damn quick that you won't be taken serious.

Believe me, think I am blunt? It will only get worse....


----------



## dapaterson (21 Dec 2007)

Interesting article at Defence Industry Daily re: the US Army's purchase of more M4s.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

The M4 placed last in reliability, with 1 jam every 68 rounds.  The H&K 416, a gas-piston upper receiver group that can be added on to an M4, was in 3rd place, with a rate of 1 jam in 257 rounds.

When asked about the difference in reliability of the weapons, a US Army spokesman said that it was "A mathematically statistically significant difference, but not an operationally statistical difference."

Thoughts?


----------



## geo (21 Dec 2007)

It is interesting that while Canada went & modified it's C7/M16 to the point that it (C7A2) now posesses most of the features of the C8/M4, the US is simply looking to replace M16s with M4s.  

Does the C7A2 have a better reliability profile to the C8/M4?

Is the C7A2 the logical progression of the basic soldier's personal weapon OR should Canada & the US be buying something new right now?


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2007)

That info is actually flawed, the Hk416 had one problem gun which skewed the results - if the "lemon" was discarded as an aberant fluke - the Hk416 actually scored better than the XM-8 which "won".

Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test I = M4 vs M16A4 test in 2006
Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test II = M4 test summer of 2007
Aberdeen Extreme Dust Test III = M4 vs MK16 vs HK416 vs XM8 test November 2007

Carbines/rifles were subjected to 25 hours of constant, heavy dusting in laboratory conditions at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 10 of each weapon fired 6,000 rounds apiece. They were fired in 50 120-round cycles. Each was then wiped and re-lubricated at the 600 round mark. After 1,200 rounds were fired from each weapon, they were fully cleaned and re-lubricated. All weapons exhibited significant wear that rendered them unsafe for firing beyond 6,000 rounds without replacement of the barrel and/or bolt. 

MRBS (Mean Rounds Between Stoppage) for Class 1, 2, and 3 combined. A class 1 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear within 10 seconds; a class 2 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear, but requires more than 10 seconds; and, class 3 is a stoppage that requires an armorer to clear:

XM8: 472.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

MK16 SCAR-L: 265.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

416: 257.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

M4: 195.5 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test II)

M16A4: 118 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I)

M4: 89 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I)

M4: 68 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test III)

M16A4: 28 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I with light lube)

M4: 6 MRBS (Extreme Dust Test I with light lube)

MRBF data, this is a Class 3, meaning mean rounds before it is inoperatable (I can only find partial data):

XM8 5,454.5 MRBF (Extreme Dust Test III)

M4 5,454.5 MRBF (Extreme Dust Test II)

M4 3,158 MRBF (Extreme Dust Test III)


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2007)

GEO -- typically rifles will have a better MRBF and MRBS than carbines -- however its not always the case.

 A C7A1/A2 is really just a M16A3 with an M16A4 flattop receiver (M16A3 is the select fire - non burst version of the A2)  With the addition of the H2 buffer and spring for the telestock - it should not alter the reliability.

 The C8SFW/L119A1 had a bit better MRBF than the M4A1 - but the MRBS was near identical.


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2007)

Lastly -- any "extreme dust testing" will benifit piston guns as they run cooler - and do not burn off lube at the rate that DI guns do.
  Thus the DI gun looses its ability to move the crud much faster -- the reason why we all run our guns so wet in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frankly - I'm still a beleiver that a M4A1 or C8SFW is ideal - and we would benifit far better by more rounds (and part replacement) for training than we would a new system, nothing I've experience over the last few years makes me beleive differently.

 Now I'm not saying if I had a small arms budget I would not do it -- but I'd get a better optic, better mags and better ammo first.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Dec 2007)

I-6: But if you're going to lifecycle the small arms fleet, would you buy more of the same, or go for a system that can be an order of magnitude more reliable?

That's the main issue i nthe US:  They were trying by stealth to replace a significant portion of their small arms holdings without any evaluation or determination of what systems on the market would provide the best functionality.


I do agree that the CF needs to increase its small arms ammunition purchases and increase the number of live rounds soldiers fire in training.


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2007)

Fortunately I am not the LCMM SA - I just throw rocks at him  ;D

 I've got a few ins down south - but not all the data, so its hard to make a lifecycle determination off one test for a specific environment.  I see why the desert dust environment is getting play -- but we need to be sure the systems function in the full spectrum of war.

I've been impressed with the Hk416's 






Enough to let 9erD play with one.





I remain unconvinced that its a huge step forward, for most roles and environments however.   WRT to the US - not specifically as with CANSOF the procurement system is not inline with the conventional arm -- the SOF units can buy what they wish for their roles.
  SCAR was competed - the Hk416 was not allowed - and many units bought their own.
As for Big Army - well they need a real competition - with a statistically significant smaple size in the full spectrum of operations -- IF they are going to try to replace a system -- the M4 buys - are akin to the Hk416 - and perhaps there should be some research -- however the M4 is in the system...

 I'd suggest that for most M16FOW armies with lowers that are still service able (a lot of CF ones are getting touchy from use and abuse over the last 20 years) that the Hk416 is a great COTS drop in.  However there are many drop in systems and before we jump on the Hk buy wagon -- we need to look at them all.
  For a full fleet replacement -- then a no holds barred open competiton, and dont anchor it to the C79...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Dec 2007)

So here I am looking on Wikipedia (yeah I know, reader beware) apparently Iceland uses the C8 as well. If its true, who would have thought....


----------



## uzi (2 Feb 2008)

does canada produce ar style rifle for civ market?


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Feb 2008)

EDIT.

No, you'll have to stick to US AR-15 family, numerous US facimiles, or Chi-Com copies.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2008)

uzi said:
			
		

> does canada produce ar style rifle for civ market?



Have you ever visited Canadian Tire?


----------



## Kyu (3 Feb 2008)

I don't know for provinces outside of Quebec, but Canadian Tire in Quebec won't sell "guns" anymore. Hunting rifles or carbines, air rifles, airsoft, paintball and all related ammunition won't be sold in Quebec's Canadian Tire anymore. I was told so by a Canadian Tire employee, when I wanted to buy pellets for my air rifle. 

Apparently it's because they don't want to lose time by locking/unlocking those items, and checking ID at the cash. I don't think it's the real reason though. I used to sell ammo and paintball stuff at Wal-Mart and it was as much of a hassle as selling a GPS.  :


----------



## KevinB (3 Feb 2008)

uzi said:
			
		

> does canada produce ar style rifle for civ market?



Sorta - DLASK Arms in BC -- however their QC is suspect.


----------



## Yrys (23 Feb 2008)

A video that I'm not sure if it  already has been post :

AK-47 vs M-16


Could someone point the puzzled civilian lady that I am to explanations about the following :


How come the AK-47 seems to have so much more power that the M-16 in that video ?

I understand how come one (M-16) could be more precise, but they seem similar in the video,
and they don't explain why the AK-47 bullet has more pression ... (Would firepower be adequate here?)


Édith :Forget my questions,  ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs has answered them  .


----------



## J.V.Trooper (8 Mar 2008)

The C7 is also used by Denmark, Holland (The Netherlands), and Norway and some police forces.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (8 Mar 2008)

J.V.Trooper said:
			
		

> The C7 is also used by Denmark, Holland (The Netherlands), and Norway and some police forces.


.........and UK SF.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Mar 2008)

J.V.Trooper said:
			
		

> The C7 is also used by Denmark, Holland (The Netherlands), and Norway and some police forces.



And what is your point JV? Anyone the with Black Rifle II can read that.

How about filling your profile.


----------



## uzi (14 Mar 2008)

does colt Canada make everything of C7 by themself? or they buy something from other surppliers like spring, firepin, handguard............?


----------



## geo (14 Mar 2008)

Diemaco / Colt Canada is a division of Colt Defense weapons systems of the US.
Of course they contract out what they don't make in one of their various plants.


----------



## starseed (29 Jan 2009)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> .........and UK SF.



I would be loathe to draw conclusions from that. The SAS has a hard-on for being different; they most definitely buy into the "special" forces label


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Jan 2009)

The UK SF community does use Colt Canada weapons. Its known as the 5.56mm L119A1 SFW, NSN 1005 21 920 6546. The contract commenced in 2000.  The Diemaco decison was taken after the C7 outperformed its competitors, which included the SIG 500, and HK G36.

The L119A1 SFW has been extensively used in Afghanistan, and in Iraq by UK SF, with one British officer saying 'these Diemaco wepaons functioned as advertised'.

References available if so requested.

OWDU


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Jan 2009)

And personal endorsments there OWDU?

 ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Jan 2009)

Nope, but I do love that litle black rifle, and despise the F88 FOW (AUG). Mind you, I had really no issues carrying the F88 in Iraq, but I'd much rather have the M4   ;D


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Ocdt.Rowed (6 Mar 2009)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> 5.56 mm  sniper rifle?!  Even on an accurate weapon that bullet is not accurate beyond 600m.  It is too easily affected by wind and other atmospheric conditions.
> 
> Yard Ape



Worse than that, even if you could correct at the distance the round would have no usable kinetic energy left, it wouldn't do alot of damage, unless you happened to hit the target in the head from beyond 600m with  .20 calibre round.....good luck with that


----------



## Dissident (19 Mar 2009)

Anyone use this yet?

http://www.diemaco.com/cqb-page.htm


----------



## KevinB (19 Mar 2009)

Those that have it likley won't be posting here


----------



## Dissident (19 Mar 2009)

Dunno. I heard a rumor... If I get my hands on one, I'll be sure to share.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2009)

They are issued in CANSOFCOM, and with their commands view of internet posting...


----------



## SteveB (23 Mar 2009)

Well, CANSOFCOM aren't the only ones who could offer comment.  I went for a ride along with an old friend who is now with the OPP.  They have started to replace their Mini-14s with C8cqbs.  He still hadn't done his conversion course at the time so he didn't have an opinion, I'll see if he has some experiences he's willing to post.


----------



## KevinB (23 Mar 2009)

rgr -- not alot of LE posting here, and the version the OPP have is I think the 10" - not the 11.5" that is the current version being issued in the CF.


----------



## rampage800 (23 Mar 2009)

Seen "guys" with them, you can believe me when I tell you that the weapons aren't any shorter with the silencers on them than the C-8 HBs are and I never saw any that didn't have that little attachment at the front


----------



## EMEGUY421 (24 Mar 2009)

The Brits love that little rifle, and I have worked on them in KAF. I believe the version of the CQB the OPP are getting have the 3 shot burst mech, not the full auto model we all enjoy in the A3. I cannot fathom accuracy beyond 250 - 300M max. 10" bbl is not a tack driver, just a bullet hose.


----------



## SteveB (29 Mar 2009)

Bullet hose?  A shorter barrel of a given diameter is stiffer than a longer one and, therefore more intrinsically more accurate.  Barrel manufacture and installation will have a greater effect on accuracy.  Shorter barrels tend to mean a shorter sighting radius, this has no impact on scopes or reflex sites.  Shorter barrels do mean lower velocities and a more looping trajectory, making range estimation more important.

These cqb variants are oddly meant for close quarter battle.  They would be used instead of an smg or perhaps some form of pdw.  In other words accuracy and trajectory out to 150 meters is fine and far better than something like an mp5.  No one seems to deride the mp5's accuracy.  Though a good man can reliably hit paper targets at 500 meters on a range with a C7, ammo effectiveness and a touch of adrenaline make even your 250-300 meters unrealistic for most.  A better argument might be that the standard issue ammunition will be of limited effective range from such a short barrel.  See Infidel's earlier posts on bullet fragmentation versus velocity.  It seems that cqb ammunition might be in order.  Of course that's logistically impossible for the big army but, possible for small units or police forces.  On that note, the OPP's rifle is probably semi-auto only.  It had a triad rail and iron sites.

I'm more interested in Kevin's thoughts on the reliability of a short barrelled direct gas system.  He earlier alluded to the HK416's superiority for barrels shorter than 16".  Kev is there a reliability decrease with the 10-11.5 inchers?  How much?

Steve

edited because eme421 does know what he's talking about. I assume bullet hose is just a little hyperbole.


----------



## ceejay77 (1 May 2009)

The 5.56 calible is not a effective round it has range and accuracy but does not have the stopping power I seen on a weapons developement show a  American arms company has produced a weapon almost identical to M16A2 but it chambers a 6.5 round it is the perfect step up as the 7.62 was to big and heavy the 5.56 no stopping power this new round is in the middle ground and hopefully will be adopted across the board as the 5.56 replacement.


----------



## COBRA-6 (1 May 2009)

OMG :brickwall:


----------



## 1feral1 (1 May 2009)

ceejay77 said:
			
		

> The 5.56 calible is not a effective round........
> 
> .......I seen on a weapons developement show....



Bloke,

If you are going to spout garbage you claim is gospel, provide a link.

Having dealt with M193 in A1's from 1978 to F1 in F88 FOW currently, I find your post completely worthless, and secondly its CALIBRE not CALIBLE.

Want some cheap advice? Stick to your area of expertise and learn from this thread by reading it, instead of shooting from the hip with blanks and making a fool of yourself.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## KevinB (1 May 2009)

7.62 is not too big  ;D






notice 2 pieces of brass in the air and I am back on target...

But as for lack of anti-personnel effectiveness of 5.56mm, as long as the shooter does his job with placement  - it works.

Barrier penetration and longer range effectiveness is where the 7.62x51 NATO round comes into its own.

 Mind you the TSWG 155gr round is a very handy CQB round for those unimpacted by such inconveniences as the Hague Convention


----------



## KevinB (1 May 2009)

I think I have pasted this elsewhere in this thread but...


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 May 2009)

Here's link to the 5.56mm & 7.62mm Wiki pages, which I found somewhat informative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56x45mm_NATO 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x51mm_NATO

I confess a preference for the 7.62 mm 'demolition round' but, then again, I also think that bayonets are still relevant to the infantry so should be viewed with suspicion...  ;D


----------



## KevinB (1 May 2009)

The wiki 5.56mm page is a little dated, with the AA12 "optimized" Brown Tip round being the short barrel favorite these days in circle that can get it (did I mention I have a few mags of it   ;D)

 The 7.62 page is worse.

 I think a section/squad DMR or 'Recce' Rifle in a 16" 7.62 gun is a slick little number -- but not for everyone.  

For the most the M80 147gr ball round is a poor terminal performer, and inside 150m your better off for unemposed targets to go with 5.56mm.

*Note the Long Neck upset of the M855 is much more common, especially with C77 ammuntion - so the bullet can exit most smaller framed folk when shot face on without significant damage.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 May 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The wiki 5.56mm page is a little dated, with the AA12 "optimized" Brown Tip round being the short barrel favorite these days in circle that can get it (did I mention I have a few mags of it   ;D)
> 
> The 7.62 page is worse.
> 
> ...


  
Can't beat 1 x C6 per section plus a C6 SF at Pl HQ as far as I'm concerned. All hail 'The General'.  

How does 5.56 perform against body armour and light cover/ soft skinned vehicles compared with 7.62 inside 150/200m? I've shot a both with the latter but not with the former, and they were both toast.


----------



## KevinB (2 May 2009)

Its a hard question to answer.

 M995 AP 5.56mm rocks - it chews plates, cars etc.  It does make a small .224 hole in Mr. Target though.

 Keep in mind USSOC issue ESAPI plate will take 6 rounds of 7.62x54R API-T or equivalent 7.62N or 30-06 ammo.

5.56mm ammuntion benifts from a lot more R&D being done on it in the last 20 years -- improved 7.62 rounds exist, but not in an issue format as of yet.--


----------



## Trooper Hale (2 May 2009)

I wouldnt normally comment on this page but.
I6, i know its going to be an obvious question but i cant remember you saying it before, do you think that, for putting holes into Mr. Target, 7.62/.308 is an outdated round? I've recently been reading about the politic's behind the British .280 and the picking of 7.62 and i've found it really quite facinating. That rounds around the .280 mark are making a bit of a comeback, 50 years after the struggle for the round, is quite interesting i think.


----------



## KevinB (4 May 2009)

M80 ball certainly is outdated.  There are more modern combinations rounds (like SS109) for 7.62 - that upset earlier in human tissue, and yet provide better AP ability for armor, and medium barriers.
 That said -- you dont want to hump several hundred rounds of 7.62 for a rifle...

I think if NATO had adopted the EM-2 in .280 it would likely still be issued in some sort of A8 revision with a rail system and advanced optical sight.

7x46 designed by Chris Murray when he was at AMU (he is off working to Triple Canopy in Iraq now) was designed as the optimal should fired personal weapon round, without contraints to the M16FOW architecture.
  6.8x43 (SPC) and 6.5x39 (Grendel) where constrained by the platform.

There is no free lunch...
  More round equals, more weight, and more recoil.

 Changing platforms or cartridges results in logistical issues at the very least.

I still beleive that a mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons can get the job done, and the biggest improvements would result from better training, and more ammunition for training.


----------



## starseed (20 Jun 2009)

I have a couple of questions I haven't seen answered here yet, though I'll admit I stopped reading at about page 30. Forgive me if flog the poor horse a couple more times...

First, I've read and heard various, possibly apocryphal stories about what actually happens when a 5.56 round impacts on flesh, particularly on "skinnies" back in Somalia, if you'll forgive the term. I've often heard that the round will simply go right through a thin target without tumbling or generating the massive flesh wounds they're designed to, even that in terms of pure stopping power, if not lethality, 5.56 is sometimes more effective against a target wearing body armor (or fat people?). Is there any truth to this?

Naturally, I'd really like to hear from someone who's seen and knows first hand whether this is a frequent problem in the Sandbox. To clarify, I'm asking if at the typical (if there is such a thing) range you're engaging at in Afghanistan, it is anything other than unusual to see timmy get hit (excluding superficial wounds of course) and continue fighting - after all it can't be expected that every shot will be ideally placed for an instant kill. 

According to this source - http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm at least (no idea how reputable or accurate it is, I know little about ballistics), a 5.56 round will have lost nearly half its kinetic energy by 500 yards (458m). (EDIT: While this is still true of a 7.62 round, 7.62 has the energy to spare, hitting with roughly the same energy at 600y that a 5.56 round does at 100...from above source).

 It seems unlikely to me that many engagements take place at this range, but even at lower distances, the loss in energy is significant enough that I'd like more information heh. Not that there is much to be done about it, short of volunteering to hump the C6, but better to have the knowledge than not..

Also, this thread has obviously been going for awhile...around page 25 or so I believe I read there was talk and even some experimentation with Designated Marksmen at the platoon level. If this is correct, is this still going on, is it a standard practice now, and if so, are they using a variant of a C7/8 or something else entirely?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## KevinB (20 Jun 2009)

This topic has been hashed and rehashed to death.

1) the biggest complaints on 5.56mm in Somalia was from MSG Paul Howe, they had both CAR-15 (11.5") and M4 (14.5") rifles, as well as ammunition specifically for those short barrel guns, however when they ran out, they had to take ammuntion from the Ranger, and ammuntion dropped by Little Bird, both of which was M855, which is not ideal in short guns, especially in longer distances.
  other members of the troop involved have not complained, and some dismiss Paul's complaints.

2) C77 and M855 are NOT ideal rounds for smaller statured peoples, especially in short barrel guns.  This is the reason that USNSWC Crane had the Optimized 5.56mm round developed.  As well some entites run carbine 7.62 NATO guns.
   That said for the most part if you do your part and get good hits, the ammo does its job, with the caveat that nothing handheld is 100%.   There are cases of pers hit with 25mm HEI and 40mm HEDP have kept coming.

3) Bullet placement is much more important than bullet construction 

4) Wound profiles are usually velocity dependant, but don't mistake impact energy with an effective impact.  the human body is very resiliant, bullets that fragment can cause massive damage, but bullets that do not, will sail harmlessly (well relatively) thru the body, unless they strike a bone, or major blood vessle.

Any more questions?


----------



## KevinB (20 Jun 2009)

There are some ballistics threads elsewhere that have some good info.

The one thing you will note as you see bullet results, no round acts the same in every incident, you can hit a target at the same range in the same spot one time, and the next time it can have different results.


----------



## sm1lodon (16 Dec 2009)

So, in brief, the likelihood that the 5.56 will go away any time soon is unlikely because:
A) It is very proven
B) It is in very wide use
C) it provides satisfactory performance at the distances in which most combat is presently taking place, especially with proper training to place shots where they are most likely to incapacitate and kill
D) It is light and compact enough to enable the individual warfighter to carry quite a large number of rounds, especially when compared to the 7.62mm NATO round
E) It has a fairly flat trajectory
F) It has low recoil, thus contributing to more effective weapon control, especially in multiple-round bursts.


----------



## dinicthus (4 May 2011)

Meditations in Green said:
			
		

> Something to keep in mind is that the basic design is around 40 years old. To me, that says quite a bit about the M16‘s design and subsequent modifications.



The B52 and Chinook come to mind. If it ain't broke...


----------



## CAL19ACO (10 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> 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.


The M14 was originally born out of the US Army's led held and out dated view about long range aimed fire, despite coming to the same conclusions as the soviets after the second world war in regards to average combat distances and impact of number of rounds fired. When combat experience showed them that the M14 and it ammo were to heavy, they turned to a variant of one the rifle that had competed against the M14 for adoption (AR-10). they found that the AR-15's light weight and light ammo allowed troops to carry 3 times as much ammo for the same total weight of weapon and ammo. This and the AR-14/XM16's mild recoil thanks to the inline stock allowed the weapon to be fired accurately in automatic bursts unlike the M14 which for the AVERAGE soldier was very hard to control. Unfortunately between the ability to carry a lot more ammo (combat loads of up to 1000 rounds) and the controllable automatic fire gave the some troops the impression that they could spray with the M16; and when in the hands of a nervous sorta welled train grunt in the jungles of Vietnam, a lot of ammo tended to be wasted. The US armed forces also found that in the hands of a more experienced soldier, they only tended to fire in bursts of 2-5 bullets and a time if they used automatic fire at all. 
After the Vietnam war the M16A1 was continually updated until the M16A2 came along; the A2 variant had a different hand guard (same one as the C7), tighter rifling twist and modified sights. The three round burst was chosen because of the tendency for troops to spray when under fire, and because they found a three round burst to be the best combination of accuracy and ammo conservation. Even at that, most troops are still trained to use there M16's in semi-auto "unless they have a damn good reason". 
The C7 was the result of the urging of a CF liaison officer to the USMC who had tried out both the M16A1 and early version of the M16A2. The C7 and the C7A1 more so are a combination of M16 features and new innovation. the C7 is based of the Colt model 715: it featured the hand-guards, barrel profile and buttstock of the A2, while retaining the automatic fire trigger group, and rear sight  of the A1. later the C7A1 variant featured a weaver optics rail instead of the carry handle iron sight, and featured slightly heavier cold hammer forged barrel which according to Diemaco is more durable and accurate than the M16A2's barrel. the A2 variant features a carbine collapsible buttstock, and a piccatinny top rail and TRAID mount.
as far as future development is concerned, there are two main things i would like to see in the future A3 variant of the C7, the first is the standardization of a full attachment rail front handguard, most people would think to go with a KAC M5 RAS, but those are heavy and would make the C7 even more front heavy, i would instead go for something lighter like the Magpul MOE handguard, which allows the user to add as much or as little rail space as need and would like make the weapon more balanced.


----------



## MikeL (10 Oct 2011)

CAL19ACO said:
			
		

> there are two main things i would like to see in the future A3 variant of the C7, the first is the standardization of a full attachment rail front handguard, most people would think to go with a KAC M5 RAS, but those are heavy and would make the C7 even more front heavy, i would instead go for something lighter like the Magpul MOE handguard, which allows the user to add as much or as little rail space as need and would like make the weapon more balanced.



Adding a KAC RAS to the C7 will not make it front heavy.. how do I know this?  I've used the M5 RAS on my C7 before, and it didn't make the weapon front heavy, unbalanced or too heavy to handle comfortably.  A number of Canadians have used a KAC RAS on their C7/C8 no problem, and from what I've seen all CANSOFCOM uses the KAC RAS and it seems too be just fine for all of them and the US Military as well.


----------



## CAL19ACO (10 Oct 2011)

KevinB said:
			
		

> This topic has been hashed and rehashed to death.
> 
> 1) the biggest complaints on 5.56mm in Somalia was from MSG Paul Howe, they had both CAR-15 (11.5") and M4 (14.5") rifles, as well as ammunition specifically for those short barrel guns, however when they ran out, they had to take ammuntion from the Ranger, and ammuntion dropped by Little Bird, both of which was M855, which is not ideal in short guns, especially in longer distances.
> other members of the troop involved have not complained, and some dismiss Paul's complaints.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#M855A1
the new M855A1 round seems to have solved the problem in insufficient muzzle velocity in 14.5 barrel carbines that was leading to lower kinetic energy and stopping power.


----------



## CAL19ACO (10 Oct 2011)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Adding a KAC RAS to the C7 will not make it front heavy.. how do I know this?  I've used the M5 RAS on my C7 before, and it didn't make the weapon front heavy, unbalanced or too heavy to handle comfortably.  A number of Canadians have used a KAC RAS on their C7/C8 no problem, and from what I've seen all CANSOFCOM uses the KAC RAS and it seems too be just fine for all of them and the US Military as well.



i have no personal experience with the C7 but i'm just going by what a few serving friends and serving forum members have said about the C7A2 being a bit front heavy and i also know from experience that a KAC RAS/RIS forearm is a fair bit heavier than a standard ribbed forearm.


----------



## KevinB (10 Oct 2011)

Don't beleive all of what you read on the M855A1 round -- your pushing beyond proof pressure on every round -- its great for gun manufacturers as you can sell replacement bolts by the truckload now...
    Better ammo exists that does not cause decreased lifespan and reliability decreases.

 Keep in mind the RIS/RAS was adopted over 10 years ago.  We and the rest of industry have come a long way in handguard design.
   Freefloat rails that are lighter than the standard plastic foreend - with rail where you need it - not everywhere.
But as I have both a M16A4 with out with M5RAS here in the office - I can tell you the difference in weight is actually negligable.
4.510lbs with plastic foreend
4.820 with M5 RAS - a difference of less than 1/2 a lb, for greater than 30% increase in cooling, and rather unlimited accessory mounting.
For interests sake a M16A4 with URX front handguard weighs:  4.650 
  An a M16A4 with lowprofile gas block and URX3.1 weights 4.485lbs.

Albiet the new US Army FRAK (Forward Rail Accessory Kit) soliciation requires rail running the length of the handguard...


----------



## Snaketnk (10 Oct 2011)

CAL19ACO said:
			
		

> i have no personal experience with the C7 but i'm just going by what a few serving friends and serving forum members have said about the C7A2 being a bit front heavy and i also know from experience that a KAC RAS/RIS forearm is a fair bit heavier than a standard ribbed forearm.



What makes the C7 front heavy is the fact we only have rails mounted on the gas block, and all our accessories typically hang from that. It's much much more tolerable if the stuff gets mounted closer to the reciever by add-on rails, which have a myriad of problems already.


----------



## MikeL (3 Aug 2012)

Had some free time at work a few days ago and search the DIN,  found a power point presentation outlining the changes/improvements to Canadian Small Arms,  sounds like there is interest in replacing the plastic handguards with a RAS for the C7/C8,  new sights, plastic magazines, new sling, etc

I used the search word "C7A3" and it was one of the first links that came up.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Aug 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> search the DIN.............  found





Someone searched the DIN and found something ...........Holy s**t !!!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Aug 2012)

That happens?  You wouldn't believe how hard it was to find "military justice at the summary trial level"!! Oh wait, I never actually did find it.


----------



## MikeL (3 Aug 2012)

After the DIN failed me 20 times before on other occasions,  it was bound to work for me once.


----------



## KevinB (3 Aug 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> That happens?  You wouldn't believe how hard it was to find "military justice at the summary trial level"!! Oh wait, I never actually did find it.



There is no justice in a summary trial...


----------



## shane2two (16 Sep 2012)

What`s this I hear about "cook offs" ? I`ve yet to fire a C7 and have never heard of such a thing until today. So yeah, what`s a cook off?


----------



## brihard (16 Sep 2012)

shane2two said:
			
		

> What`s this I hear about "cook offs" ? I`ve yet to fire a C7 and have never heard of such a thing until today. So yeah, what`s a cook off?



It's something that *can* happen but very rarely does.

When you fire a rifle rapidly for a length of time, parts of it will heat up, particularly the chamber and the barrel. Because the C7 fires from a closed bolt, an unfired round will sit in the chamber indefinitely until you either fire it, or clear the weapon. If, hypothetically, your rifle has been fired to the point of being very hot, a round in the chamber could itself heat up to the point where the propellant in the round ignites and the round fires. I've only ever personally had it happen to me once that I can recall, and we had just put a ludicrous amount of ammo downrange very quickly.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Sep 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> It's something that *can* happen but very rarely does.
> 
> When you fire a rifle rapidly for a length of time, parts of it will heat up, particularly the chamber and the barrel. Because the C7 fires from a closed bolt, an unfired round will sit in the chamber indefinitely until you either fire it, or clear the weapon. If, hypothetically, your rifle has been fired to the point of being very hot, a round in the chamber could itself heat up to the point where the propellant in the round ignites and the round fires. I've only ever personally had it happen to me once that I can recall, and we had just put a ludicrous amount of ammo downrange very quickly.



Or. more usually, that's what the RCO will do if you screw up on the firing point somehow  ;D


----------



## fraserdw (29 Sep 2012)

I still got my C1 bayonet, along with my ration pack can opener, they are my most venerated relics!


----------



## MeatheadMick (30 Sep 2012)

A Cooked round occurs much more regularly in a machine gun vice a rifle... I have never had a round cook off in a C7, but have seen cook offs in a C9 a few times, seen a mag explode off of a C9 and had the wonderful experience of having a C6 being a run away gun as well...


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Sep 2012)

If you're doing Urban Ops shoots and doing mag dumps, you'll quickly see a couple of cook offs. That's why we leave our bolts to the rear between shoots.


----------



## MeatheadMick (30 Sep 2012)

Interesting, and good to know. I've only ever done CQB with blanks and Sim, have been fortunate enough not to experience this. Wonder how the HK416 does in this area. Seen videos of it firing 1000+ rounds and the bolt is still cool.  Would be an excellent replacement for the C7/C8, however I'm sure H&K would not want to sign over their tech to Colt Canada either


----------



## KevinB (30 Sep 2012)

Its not the bolt its the chamber, for the most part that causes the conductive heating of the round until it goes off.

C6 and C9's don't cook off - they are open bolt weapons, thus the round does not chamber until its firing, nor is the cartridge sitting on the face of the bolt.  The M-2 .50 could cook off - as the round was sitting in the T slot against the face of the bolt -- leading to the reason for hot barrle unload drills.

Run Away guns with the C6 and C9 are not related to weapon temp - but the bolt not going back far enough to engage the sear and the secondary sear is usually worn.


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Sep 2012)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Run Away guns with the C6 and C9 are not related to weapon temp - but the bolt not going back far enough to engage the sear and the secondary sear is usually worn.




Or the pistol grip falling off, with one of the most classic looks you can ever see on someone's face.


----------



## KevinB (30 Sep 2012)

Yeah, I guess no sear would be a minor issue too


----------



## uzi (31 Oct 2013)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Interesting, and good to know. I've only ever done CQB with blanks and Sim, have been fortunate enough not to experience this. Wonder how the HK416 does in this area. Seen videos of it firing 1000+ rounds and the bolt is still cool.  Would be an excellent replacement for the C7/C8, however I'm sure H&K would not want to sign over their tech to Colt Canada either


Impossible for the price


----------



## KevinB (4 Nov 2013)

Lots of negatives that folks don't understand about piston op rod designs in the M16FOW...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Nov 2013)

Was offset torque on the bolt carrier caused by the piston continuing to act on the top of the bolt carrier one of them?


----------



## brihard (4 Nov 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Lots of negatives that folks don't understand about piston op rod designs in the M16FOW...



You've piqued my curiosity, Kevin. Care to elaborate?


----------



## KevinB (4 Nov 2013)

How long do you have?  
  I think the Hk416 is the best of the piston guns out there -- and its a great gun, but it like all the other piston setups in the M16FOW.  

The M16 was designed in an impingement setup -- the gasses that are vented at the gas port travel down the gas tube and when vented into the carrier the bolt acts as the piston -- the bolt is pressurized against the bolt face while the carrier starts rearward travel.  In the tappet piston systems - there is not pressurization and unlike the DI series guns there is not a slow cushioning of compressed air thru the gas tube first before the gasses -- the piston just impacts carrier and drives it rearward.

With a suppressor - the majority of the fouling comes from the gun unlocking while the barrel is still pressurized -- piston guns with the faster and more violent unlocking often exhibit this worse (believe it or not).

Piston guns are also much more ammunition sensitive thus require adjustable gas systems to cater to different ammo's or unsuppressed/suppressed firings.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Nov 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Piston guns are also much more ammunition sensitive thus require adjustable gas systems to cater to different ammo's or unsuppressed/suppressed firings.



FN C1 for example?


----------



## KevinB (5 Nov 2013)

One example...


----------



## Dissident (18 Nov 2013)

My platoon some C8A3 on order, which should apparently arrive shortly. I'm told the optics they will be paired with are C79A2. Anyone done the math on the shift in POI at the pre-set ranges on the scope dial? I could probably figure it out myself with a bit of work, but figured I'd ask first.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Nov 2013)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> My platoon some C8A3 on order, which should apparently arrive shortly. I'm told the optics they will be paired with are C79A2. Anyone done the math on the shift in POI at the pre-set ranges on the scope dial? I could probably figure it out myself with a bit of work, but figured I'd ask first.



Any idea if they are production models or for limited testing? last I heard Colt was in prototype stages for the A3, and that the SAM project was lacking funds for all projects. That said the M203 is being shifted to reserve only with the Colt Canada Eagle being brought in for the reg force in the coming years. SAM project is also looking to purchase new C6's within the next five years to replace older ones in the system.


----------



## Dissident (20 Nov 2013)

Anyone got the exact sight height over bore of the C7/C79 combo? No luck with google.


----------



## Loachman (3 Jun 2014)

Reported in the Ottawa Citizen on 1 June 2014 - but don't anybody even *think* of posting a link - Colt Canada intends to market semi-automatic C7s and C8s, possibly beginning this summer. No forecast price yet.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jun 2014)

Too bad they're restricted because they're mean looking. Otherwise I'd absolutely pick one up. CAF can't afford for me to go to the range once a year, I might as well try to go myself.


----------



## Stoker (3 Jun 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Reported in the Ottawa Citizen on 1 June 2014 - but don't anybody even *think* of posting a link - Colt Canada intends to market semi-automatic C7s and C8s, possibly beginning this summer. No forecast price yet.



Looks like well over $2000 probably closer to $3000


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jun 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Looks like well over $2000 probably closer to $3000



Or you could buy the Chinese CQ 5.56 M4 Style Semi-Auto Carbine [CQ-A] for $529.00 from Marstar. http://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=75213.

And yes, they work just as well, for the average shooter.


----------



## Stoker (3 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Or you could buy the Chinese CQ 5.56 M4 Style Semi-Auto Carbine [CQ-A] for $529.00 from Marstar. http://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=75213.
> 
> And yes, they work just as well, for the average shooter.



Already own a Norinco along with others. The only factor for me buying one would be the Diemaco markings like CF issue. Hopefully they'll won't be that expensive.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jun 2014)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Already own a Norinco along with others. The only factor for me buying one would be the Diemaco markings like CF issue. Hopefully they'll won't be that expensive.



Maybe they'll sell the stripped lower receiver?


----------



## Stoker (3 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Maybe they'll sell the stripped lower receiver?



Hope so, Colt is not know for selling their lowers though


----------



## Dissident (3 Jun 2014)

When you can get an imported Colt 6920 for ~$1500 (or a Daniel Defense for $1700), a +$2000 C7/C8 makes no sense.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Jun 2014)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> When you can get an imported Colt 6920 for ~$1500 (or a Daniel Defense for $1700), a +$2000 C7/C8 makes no sense.



Does if your getting a Hammer forged barrel, which would justify the price gap


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 Jun 2014)

They are also talking about selling a limited supply of the Integrated upper receiver version.

The handguards and stuff will be black to differentiate them from the issue version as well.

From Reddit:
"They will be black (sorry, we had to separate it from the military line somehow), and they won't have the ELCAN C79 sight, and the cocking handle won't be a hook (the one all soldiers disliked)... other than that, they will be pretty much the same as the C7A2 and the C8A3.

As for markings; one side will have the Colt Canada logo, and the other will have the old Diemaco D... our commercial sales div will be known as Diemaco

Source: I work at Colt Canada."


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (5 Jun 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Does if your getting a Hammer forged barrel, which would justify the price gap



DD and BCM use CHF bbl's at the 1500-1700 $ range. So does KAC and a number of others.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (5 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Or you could buy the Chinese CQ 5.56 M4 Style Semi-Auto Carbine [CQ-A] for $529.00 from Marstar. http://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=75213.
> 
> And yes, they work just as well, for the average shooter.



That is a bold statement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jun 2014)

He qualified it "for the average shooter" My Nork M4 has served me well considering I can't take it anywhere but on the range and at most I will put 60rds through it in a day. It's all you need, but if you want more that's ok as well.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (6 Jun 2014)

I know, that is why I said it is a bold statement. Even the average shooters at my range notice there is something wrong with their Norc AR when they are prompted to ask me to inspect their brass (blown out and ripped/fissured casings) due to out of spec chambers. Their QC seriously lacks and there are far better options for about 200$ more.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jun 2014)

Interesting I reload my own and have zero problems with it. I agree QC is not their best strength, then again much of the North American firearms seemed to be suffering QC issues in the rush to meet the market demand. I just jumped onto the surplus DPMS wagon and in July will see what I get. 

My first semi-auto was a AG-42b now that was hard on brass, if you could find it afterwards. (I think the brass ejection was meant to be a "Close in defense system" )  ;D


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (6 Jun 2014)

The IRG import from the sandbox? It was a good price for an entry AR. From what I hear they should only have handling marks. They were carried by contractors and probably weren't shot much at all.  If you're one to collect sand samples from around the world, you might find some in the bottom of the action!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jun 2014)

Yes those are the ones, interesting enough history that I should be able to weave a completely BS story how it was carried by F troop, SBS as they paddled the rivers of Afghanistan in search of OBL  8)

If I could carry a AR off the range I would get a nicer one, but if that was the case I would likely be using my FAL


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> That is a bold statement.



Not really. I've bought, sold, modified and gunsmithed close to, if not more than a hundred Norinco firearms. I've also custom built a large number of AR style firearms and fixed an equal number for people. I've found.with the exception of final finish (cosmetics don, alter functionality) for the beginner, or averge weekend shooter on a fixed budget, there is nothing wrong with Norinco.  I've seen vuys use the Norcs in matches and unless you looked right at the gun, you'd never know what they were shooting.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (8 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not really. I've bought, sold, modified and gunsmithed close to, if not more than a hundred Norinco firearms. I've also custom built a large number of AR style firearms and fixed an equal number for people. I've found.with the exception of final finish (cosmetics don, alter functionality) for the beginner, or averge weekend shooter on a fixed budget, there is nothing wrong with Norinco.  I've seen vuys use the Norcs in matches and unless you looked right at the gun, you'd never know what they were shooting.



Yep, I've shot and handled a few that worked fine too. Not saying otherwise.

However, your recourse with Norks, should you be provided with a gun that is woefully/dangerously out of spec because of poor/non-existent QC (like this particular gentleman was), is zero unless the dealer man's up and stands behind his product (which he didn't).

At that price range you are just shy of getting a S&W Sport model anyway.


----------



## x_para76 (8 Jun 2014)

I am currently looking to purchase my first civi pattern M4 and I know that there are a lot of different manufacturers out there.  Can anyone here please give me some recommendations of good mil spec producers? Your input and any personal experience/feedback both positive and negative would be greatly appreciated. I'm willing to spend about $1500 so that may help with your suggestions. 

Many thanks!


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 Jun 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I am currently looking to purchase my first civi pattern M4 and I know that there are a lot of different manufacturers out there.  Can anyone here please give me some recommendations of good mil spec producers? Your input and any personal experience/feedback both positive and negative would be greatly appreciated. I'm willing to spend about $1500 so that may help with your suggestions.
> 
> Many thanks!



Daniel Defense DDM4v7 or the M4 Carbine V3... Both in 6.8Rem SPC II. Approx $1600 after tax and shipping.

http://www.wolverine supplies.com


----------



## Dissident (9 Jun 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Daniel Defense DDM4v7 or the M4 Carbine V3... Both in 6.8Rem SPC II. Approx $1600 after tax and shipping.
> 
> http://www.wolverine supplies.com



I don't think a shooter new to ARs will be well served by a 6.8.

My suggestion is to go to Arms East and tell Walter you are a service member and are looking for your first AR. A 16" DI Stag Arms would do you well. If you can spend a bit more, the DD line is quite nice and is sold exclusively by Wolverines. You could order a genuine Colt 6920 (the original milspec standard M4 for civilians) from Irunguns.


----------



## CombatDoc (9 Jun 2014)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I don't think a shooter new to ARs will be well served by a 6.8.


Since ARs in Canada can only be used at a range, a more economical and available solution is an AR in .223. Ammunition is readily available in bulk, inexpensive to shoot, accurate.  Stopping power is not an issue when punching paper or banging steel.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (9 Jun 2014)

http://www.irunguns.ca/store/rifles-for-sale-canada?product_id=186

I believe they have a 200$ mil discount for Colt rifles. Not sure if that is still on but you can't beat that price.


----------



## Dissident (9 Jun 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> http://www.irunguns.ca/store/rifles-for-sale-canada?product_id=186
> 
> I believe they have a 200$ mil discount for Colt rifles. Not sure if that is still on but you can't beat that price.



No you can't.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Jun 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Daniel Defense DDM4v7 or the M4 Carbine V3... Both in 6.8Rem SPC II. Approx $1600 after tax and shipping.
> 
> http://www.wolverine supplies.com



Civvie Question:  I know 5.56 and 7.62 are the two primary NATO rounds, but was curious how helpful national supply chains are in providing alternate ammunition such as the previously mentioned 6.8?  Both at home and in-theatre?


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Jun 2014)

Supply chains provide ammo for in service weapons.  The CAF frowns on "Bring your personal rifle to work" day.


----------



## Old EO Tech (10 Jun 2014)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Civvie Question:  I know 5.56 and 7.62 are the two primary NATO rounds, but was curious how helpful national supply chains are in providing alternate ammunition such as the previously mentioned 6.8?  Both at home and in-theatre?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance, Matthew.



NATO countries have all signed agreements to use standard rounds, like 5.56 and 7.62, that way we can borrow ammo from each others supply systems.  The only non-standard ammo in use would be for snipers and that is in relatively small amounts that it's not an issue for the supply chain to handle.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (10 Jun 2014)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> I don't think a shooter new to ARs will be well served by a 6.8.
> 
> My suggestion is to go to Arms East and tell Walter you are a service member and are looking for your first AR. A 16" DI Stag Arms would do you well. If you can spend a bit more, the DD line is quite nice and is sold exclusively by Wolverines. You could order a genuine Colt 6920 (the original milspec standard M4 for civilians) from Irunguns.



I have the DDM4v7. Its really awesome, but yes 6.8 is expensive and difficult to find in bulk. I have to order from out of province... Shipping really kills the wallet too.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Civvie Question:  I know 5.56 and 7.62 are the two primary NATO rounds, but was curious how helpful national supply chains are in providing alternate ammunition such as the previously mentioned 6.8?  Both at home and in-theatre?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance, Matthew.



The 6.8 Rem SPCII is slightly larger than 5.56 and provides more stopping power. It was trialled by the US Navy SEALS but was never adopted because the difference between 5.56mmNATO and 6.8 Rem does not outweigh interoperability with other services and militaries so the 5.56 was retained.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Jun 2014)

Here is how to obtain 200USD military discount on Colt rifles from Irunguns. Great deal.



> This is a list of the Colt products on www.irunguns.ca that we cary and offer a $200 USD discount for Mil/LE/CBSA. To obtain your coupon code please send an email with a copy of your current or expired LE/MIL ID to steve@irunguns.ca and I will email you the code. NOTE: You must be logged into our system (not as a guest) to use the coupon code.
> 
> 
> COLT AR15-A4 .223 20"HB 30-SHOT BLACK MATTE POLYMER
> ...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Jun 2014)

OOh, now do I want to wait for the Diemaco or should I jump on these?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Jun 2014)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> OOh, now do I want to wait for the Diemaco or should I jump on these?



The Diemaco's will have better everything compared to a Colt USA, especially the barrels. Until we know the pricing there isn't a whole lot to indicate they will be a _better buy_ than a DD or a BCM (which both start at about 1500$ and include hammer forged barrels too).

If the price is substantially higher than DD or BCM _et al_., the reasons for buying Diemaco might venture into the emotional range. Say the nostalgia or the roll marks.


----------



## NavyShooter (10 Jun 2014)

I'm waiting on the Diemaco.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Jun 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm waiting on the Diemaco.



As am I.. I REALLY want my own C8.


----------



## x_para76 (14 Jun 2014)

So should I be able to get a firearms retailer to order any of these  manufacturers for me? Or will a retailer only deal in certain brands? Again I apologize for my ignorance on this subject but this is my first time purchasing a firearm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> So should I be able to get a firearms retailer to order any of these  manufacturers for me? Or will a retailer only deal in certain brands? Again I apologize for my ignorance on this subject but this is my first time purchasing a firearm.



You have a RPAL, right?


----------



## x_para76 (14 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You have a RPAL, right?



I do possess an RPAL.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 Jun 2014)

Well, now that that has been settled, I can answer you!

Most dealers carry specific brands. Some will special order what you want. Some will import anything you want, within the constraints of what you can legally possess with an RPAL, from the USA. 

IRG, to name one, is an FFL dealer in the USA as well as an importer here in Canadia. You can create an account on armslist or gunbroker or any FFL dealer to find what you want without paying the extravagant/retarded prices Canadian dealers demand. When you found what you want, at the price that suits you, buy it from the FFL dealer. They ship it to the IRG warehouse in AZ and import it for a nominal fee. Add GST and shipping and you're done. I saved 500$ on a purchase delivered to my door when I used gunbroker and IRG. 

Or... you can pay street price in Canadia.


----------



## x_para76 (14 Jun 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Well, now that that has been settled, I can answer you!
> 
> Most dealers carry specific brands. Some will special order what you want. Some will import anything you want, within the constraints of what you can legally possess with an RPAL, from the USA.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the info. Do I need to have an ATT before I do this?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2014)

When they ask why you want a restricted firearm, you're going to say 'Target shooting' ( never, ever say for 'collecting'). They will then ask what club you belong to and to provide proof. From this info they'll determine if the range is restricted capable and issue you a registration certificate. Go to your club, give them the info required, and they will apply for your ATT.

Now, if you need a short term ATT, to get it from the shop, post box, etc, you can call the CFO office and request one to get the gun home. IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S IN THE PACKAGE  If you go to the Post Office, pick up a non descript box, without knowing the contents til you get home and open it, just toss it in the trunk and go home.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 Jun 2014)

Depends how you buy it.

Dealers don't need one to ship it to you. Say you buy one from IRG. They ship it to your home. End of story. Funnily enough, the people that do the shipping don't need ATT's. Lucky them.

If you buy it at a local dealer, you need a short term ATT to take it from there to your home. Of course, you need your long term ATT to take it from your home to your local range. All this, of course, is meant to keep us safe. I know I feel safer already.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When they ask why you want a restricted firearm, you're going to say 'Target shooting' ( never, ever say for 'collecting'). They will then ask what club you belong to and to provide proof. From this info they'll determine if the range is restricted capable and issue you a registration certificate. Go to your club, give them the info required, and they will apply for your ATT.
> 
> Now, if you need a short term ATT, to get it from the shop, post box, etc, you can call the CFO office and request one to get the gun home. IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S IN THE PACKAGE  If you go to the Post Office, pick up a non descript box, without knowing the contents til you get home and open it, just toss it in the trunk and go home.



Interesting, might I inquire which province are you a resident of? In Kwebek we do the admin. I email the CFO my LTATT application every year and they email me it back. My range has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2014)

Ontario. Our CFO is a Nazi and requires the club to provide the paperwork in order to prove your membership. It also doesn't look, now, like he's going to get replaced, as we had hoped, under a new Premier.

YMMV


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (14 Jun 2014)

Wow man....and I thought we had it bad. That is just ridiculous. My condolences for dealing with Mr. Wyatt and for your recent election as well. You'd think a public servant tasked with administrating the F.A. with federal money would be subject to reprisals from the federal minister of public safety after his many childish fits up to and including his refusal to apply C-19.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Jun 2014)

I called my Alberta CFO the other day, had my Long Term ATT (LTATT) sent to me by email within 10 minutes.

'Merica / 'Berta


----------



## x_para76 (16 Jun 2014)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I called my Alberta CFO the other day, had my Long Term ATT (LTATT) sent to me by email within 10 minutes.
> 
> 'Merica / 'Berta



Wow how very modern!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jun 2014)

No doubt they will also call the new Ares Defense rifle a "AR variant" and restrict it.


----------



## stealthylizard (17 Jun 2014)

It's a black gun, so it looks assaultish and should be restricted or prohibited. /sarcasm


----------



## Jorkapp (19 Jun 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> No doubt they will also call the new Ares Defense rifle a "AR variant" and restrict it.



According to the product specs, it takes standard AR-15 uppers. Indeed there is no doubt it will be classified an AR-15 variant.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jun 2014)

The only hope is that the lower carries the serial number and is the "firearm" and the lower is clearly not a AR nor does it function like one.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (19 Jun 2014)

Hopefully the term ''variant'' will be defined/removed/fixed when the government makes its announcement this summer.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jul 2014)

Not to advertise any specific retailer, but this is the first time I've seen them up with pricing/ship date.

http://oneshottactical.com/collections/firearms/products/diemaco-sa20-rifle-colt-can-20-gov-profile-brl-blk-5-56-cal
http://oneshottactical.com/collections/firearms/products/diemaco-sa15-7-carbine-colt-can-15-7-heavy-brl-blk-5-56-cal

Now to scrape the money together to get one, since the CF can't afford ammo for me to shoot every year....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (2 Jul 2014)

The ammo source is offering free shipping. Buy it from them and pick up a case of bulk ammo at the same time! The only question now is, can you afford to shoot every weekend?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Jul 2014)

Yeah, at $300 for 1120 rounds, every weekend definitely wouldn't be an option. That's the cheap stuff, too.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (2 Jul 2014)

22LR conversions help out.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (2 Jul 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> I have the DDM4v7. Its really awesome, but yes 6.8 is expensive and difficult to find in bulk. I have to order from out of province... Shipping really kills the wallet too.
> 
> The 6.8 Rem SPCII is slightly larger than 5.56 and provides more stopping power. It was trialled by the US Navy SEALS but was never adopted because the difference between 5.56mmNATO and 6.8 Rem does not outweigh interoperability with other services and militaries so the 5.56 was retained.



Sorry one last tangential question:  My understanding is that after Mogadishu there was a renewed interest in "more stopping power than the 5.56" which led to more interest in cartridges like the 6.8mm. Although I've seen a number of AR's in 6.8, Grendel and 300 whisper/blackout I don't think I've ever seen mention of an accompanying squad automatic weapon which would be required to complete an all-intermediate cartridge unit.  Has anyone like FN ever developed such a weapon?


Thanks again, Matthew.


----------



## x_para76 (2 Jul 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> 22LR conversions help out.



What make and model is that rifle please sir?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (2 Jul 2014)

KAC SR-15 E3 IWS 16'' wearing a cmmg 16'' 22LR conversion upper. The KAC 556 upper is pictured above.


----------



## KevinB (3 Jul 2014)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Sorry one last tangential question:  My understanding is that after Mogadishu there was a renewed interest in "more stopping power than the 5.56" which led to more interest in cartridges like the 6.8mm. Although I've seen a number of AR's in 6.8, Grendel and 300 whisper/blackout I don't think I've ever seen mention of an accompanying squad automatic weapon which would be required to complete an all-intermediate cartridge unit.  Has anyone like FN ever developed such a weapon?
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Matthew.



Yes -- FN did 6.8 SAW's (well barrel and bolt kits).  
 Other companies have done .300BK LMG's  

Currently there are some good ammunition natures available in 5.56mm, as well many SOF elements have deployed 762 guns into their small elements.

6.8 is dead other than a few folks still trying to beat a drum. 
  It was abysmal from a SAW beyond 400m, and it really needs an intermediate platform weapon as a host.

Realistically if one was starting from a fresh sheet of canvas you would probably go one of two routes.
  .300BK 9" gun 
 14.5-16" 7.62 gun  
both integrally suppressed

or if you did not want a split armament 
14.5"-16" .260 type gun (once again integrally suppressed).
 *could be .260Rem, 7-08, 6XC etc. an intermediate cartridge design.

Walking a step further a 7mm Case Telescope round  ;D


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Jul 2014)

All of the 6.5/6.8/etc cartridges that were designed had, in my opinion, a fatal flaw.

They were compromise cartridges not designed to be the best, but simply "better, while limited to fitting into a standard M-16 Magazine well opening" 

There are numerous cartridges that can be argued to be "better" than the 5.56x45mm NATO round, but, within the limitations of not having to change the lower receivers, the best that could be done was compromises, and that means they were all essentially doomed from the start.  (IN MY OPINION.)

If you remove the requirement to keep the lower receiver the 'same' and magazine profile the 'same', you then move into a change of small arms platform...which means that you're looking at re-equipping or re-arming an entire military....and the various trials over the years have come to the general conclusion that in order to justify that magnitude of cost (not just replacing the weapons themselves, but the entire training, maintenance, and support system behind the weapons) you have see an improvement in capability that is not incremental, but generational.

The 'improvement' in capability of a 6.5 or 6.8 in an AR platform is an incremental change.

Going to CT ammo where you see a considerable reduction in ammo weight for equal performance downrange is almost a generational improvement, but the cost of switching is so high that it's got to be a fully developed system.

Just my thoughts....feel free to shoot 'em full of holes.  (I expect KevinB might be able to do so with some accuracy.)

NS


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (3 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Currently there are some good ammunition natures available in 5.56mm (...).



Yes I had read this a while back, mostly interesting :



> The most expeditious solution to improve terminal performance for current 5.56 mm carbines is to abandon M855 and adopt a consistent performing “Barrier Blind” combat load specifically designed for carbine use as the standard issue U.S. military 5.56 mm ammunition.



http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf


----------



## Dissident (4 Jul 2014)

Dr Roberts is knowledgeable and a great resource. I engaged him regarding ballistics vest and their testing and he sent me some very useful information. (Info I used to send a memo regarding the upcoming replacement of the MP OPD vest.)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Jul 2014)

Thanks for all replies guys....really appreciate those of you that take the time to actually educate
those of us who ask for help.


Sincerely, Matthewz.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2014)

Just got the transfer notice in the mail for my Irunguns DPMS complete with "Magic Poo Dust" When I clean it I will save that Poo dust and sell it to some Afghan Vet missing the sandbox!


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Jul 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Going to CT ammo where you see a considerable reduction in ammo weight for equal performance downrange is almost a generational improvement, but the cost of switching is so high that it's got to be a fully developed system.



If you go on the DAWN, you can find the SARP timeline, which lays out that the replacement for the C7, and C9 with use CT Ammo. Infact from what i've read and heard the plan is for a made in Canada bullpup design 5.556 CT ammo and work with this integrated soldier system project


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (5 Jul 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Just got the transfer notice in the mail for my Irunguns DPMS complete with "Magic Poo Dust" When I clean it I will save that Poo dust and sell it to some Afghan Vet missing the sandbox!



Never fired and only dropped once type of thing?


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Jul 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If you go on the DAWN, you can find the SARP timeline, which lays out that the replacement for the C7, and C9 with use CT Ammo. Infact from what i've read and heard the plan is for a made in Canada bullpup design 5.556 CT ammo and work with this integrated soldier system project



I was at a Small Arms Conference in G-town a year or so ago and saw the presentation on this from DRDC.  They even had an ergonomic bullpup model that they were using to demonstrate.

The idea of a designed and built in Canada small arm is pretty neat, and using the CT ammo is a logical progression.

The really neat part was the integrated optic/network that they were proposing.  Think wifi connected optics with target designation systems in them as overlays.

NS


----------



## Loachman (6 Jul 2014)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/made-in-canada-colt-firearms/3659630288001


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jul 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Never fired and only dropped once type of thing?



Likely used by Ugandan Security forces, likely never fired and never dropped, but a tad banged up.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jul 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I was at a Small Arms Conference in G-town a year or so ago and saw the presentation on this from DRDC.  They even had an ergonomic bullpup model that they were using to demonstrate.
> 
> The idea of a designed and built in Canada small arm is pretty neat, and using the CT ammo is a logical progression.
> 
> ...



And most civilized armies are dumping bullpups for the problems they have as combat rifles...

Optics - gawd - don't get me started.
 Battery burn from wifi stuff is incredible - FWS stuff down here is like that (and hopefully doomed to failure).


----------



## x_para76 (7 Jul 2014)

Hey I'm looking into ordering a Daniels Defence rifle through Wolverine.com and I'm just wondering if anyone here has any experience with this and can tell me what the turn around time is (assuming the rifle I want is in stock)?

Furthermore do I need to have a membership at a gun club prior to purchasing the rifle? I realize that I must have a gun club membership to use the rifle and to get an ATT but I figure I will get the rifle before the membership if I can.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2014)

You just need a restricted to purchase. For it to leave your house you need a gun club membership and ATT.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 Jul 2014)

To get back on topic:

More and more units are adopting the C8A2 in large quantities. MPs being one. Is the shortened effective range of the C8 enough for infantry units to adopt in combat that is more heavily urbanised? Conversely, are we losing capabilities with more widespread adoption of the C8.


----------



## Dissident (8 Jul 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> To get back on topic:
> 
> More and more units are adopting the C8A2 in large quantities. MPs being one. Is the shortened effective range of the C8 enough for infantry units to adopt in combat that is more heavily urbanised? Conversely, are we losing capabilities with more widespread adoption of the C8.



No.

IIRC the muzzle velocity difference between a 20" C7 and a 16" C8 gives an effective range, where the M855 (~C77 Ball) will fragment reliably, of 150m and 90m respectively. So you "lose" about 60m where the rounds MIGHT not have as good of an effect. Which considering that a (my) section has other weapon systems integral to it which cover this gap/range, I think it is NBD. Lets also throw in there that there is some ammo available (to US forces and I suspect Cansof)  that nullify the drawbacks (Mk 262 and Mk 318).


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (9 Jul 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> To get back on topic:
> 
> More and more units are adopting the C8A2 in large quantities. MPs being one. Is the shortened effective range of the C8 enough for infantry units to adopt in combat that is more heavily urbanised? Conversely, are we losing capabilities with more widespread adoption of the C8.



Curious to see what the US Army has to report since switching from the 20'' M16A2 to the 14.5'' M4.


----------



## KevinB (15 Jul 2014)

Sorry for the delays - I have been out and about.

Most shoulder fired weapon systems the range is related to the user and optic - not the weapon.

a .338LM with an Aimpoint and unskilled user, is not going to be the same as the same platform with a 5-25x optic and a skilled user.

The US Army pretty much exclusively uses the Aimpoint M68 CCO (a 1x red dot - though several different versions of the CCO exist).
  The users ability to correctly adjust for bullet drop and PID a target - as well as adjust the fall of shot is significantly impacted past 200m with that.

The M16/M4 is a pretty much dead argument -- USMC shooters have Highest Possible scored the USMC/Navy qual out to 500m with the M4A1.

Hits on target kill the enemy in a longer ranged battle - and at a few hundred meters - no enemy will know if its a C7 or C8...


----------



## Mister Donut (15 Jul 2014)

Just curious, anyone here going to grab a Diemaco/Colt Canada SA20/C7 or SA15.7/C8 or is that being discussed in another thread?  I really, really wanted one but it’s beyond my pay grade for now.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (15 Jul 2014)

Jawohl.

What of the 556's ability to tumble at various ranges at the lower velocities associated with the shorter carbine barrel?



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Sorry for the delays - I have been out and about.
> 
> Most shoulder fired weapon systems the range is related to the user and optic - not the weapon.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2014)

Rifled bullets do not tumble -- they yaw   at least modern boattail designs.

If impact velocities are high enough (variable depending on bullet materials, jacket type and thickness) depending on the tissue type and depth - then the bullet will do something else -- in the case of C77/SS109 type ammunition, it often fragments at the cannelure.

You can open a whole different can of worms on ammunition types - but if we stick to a standard NATO ball round, you will see reliable fragmentation above 2500fps impact speed (once again everything else being equal), and enough depth of tissue (lets say 6-7" for this purpose).

Below that the bullet will yaw but will stay together barring an impact with bone (which will also cause secondary fragments).

People generally die of bullet wounds one of two ways 1) CNS hit with destroys the brain stem 2) Lack of Oxygen to the brain.  With #1 your looking at a very small target area - generally not viable for the general purpose forces regardless of range.
 With number #2 - your looking to may the target leak blood like a faucet - either internally or externally by massive damage to organs and the circulatory system.  (which is why Center of Mass shooting in a misnomer, its should be high thoracic area, or center of visible mass for a reduced signature target.

Given the C77/M855/SS109 bullet design and fragmentation envelope - it really does not matter if you shoot the target at 250m with a C7 or C8.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jul 2014)

Apparently the French were looking at a non bullpup replacement for the FAMAS, but the cost of retrofitting and their vehicles and storage racks racks is causing them to have 2nd thoughts.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (16 Jul 2014)

Ack. Thanks! What of 556 at very close ranges?



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> Rifled bullets do not tumble -- they yaw   at least modern boattail designs.
> 
> If impact velocities are high enough (variable depending on bullet materials, jacket type and thickness) depending on the tissue type and depth - then the bullet will do something else -- in the case of C77/SS109 type ammunition, it often fragments at the cannelure.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2014)

Tough question to be accurate on.  

Bullet Jacket thickness plays a part and other manufacturing tolerances in the projectile

Crane put out a good NDIA paper on Fleet Yaw and effects.  

Short Neck (neck refers to distance from entry to yaw)

Sorry plane boarding door closing will get back to this.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (17 Jul 2014)

Ack

Thanks


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2014)

Okay back to this.

Short Neck Bullets - yaw and fragment within around 3-4" 
  However short neck bullets are not necessarily common - the standard ball round is a long neck bullet - and will yaw and fragment within 7-8"

Gary Roberts has a good post here.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4329-Military-Wound-Ballistic-History


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (21 Jul 2014)

It would seem the 77gr projectile is the most effecient of the 556 variety.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2014)

Not really - he does not have the gr SOST round up in those.

There are other non open source rounds as well that work well that are JAG/LoAC legal


----------



## x_para76 (25 Jul 2014)

Just tried to order a rifle from Wolverine.com and apparently you have to be a member of a gun club before they'll sell you a restricted weapon. I realize that I had to join a gun club to shoot it regardless but I have been procrastinating doing this so it seems that I will have to get off of my ass.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Just tried to order a rifle from Wolverine.com and apparently you have to be a member of a gun club before they'll sell you a restricted weapon. I realize that I had to join a gun club to shoot it regardless but I have been procrastinating doing this so it seems that I will have to get off of my ass.



The reason being that there are two classifications for owning restricted. Target shooting and collecting.

Target shooting entails taking it to a CFO approved range. Currently you can't get a long term ATT without belonging to a club. You can get a short term one if you provide an invitation from an approved range for a specific event. This is in Ontario under the auspiciousness' of the current CFO Herr Kommandant, all seeing totally unknowing, bully with a badge, Chris Wyatt. YMMV in other provinces. The government though has just promised to end the Prince John\ Sherriff of Nottingham dictorial, CFO making up their own rules and laws. We'll see. 

If you say you're a collector, you'll never be allowed to take it out of its assigned address and you'll open yourself up to more inspections that any other gun owner.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (28 Jul 2014)

Do you think Herr Wyatt's mascara will leak when he has to fire 3/4 of his staff due to ATT's being rolled into RPAL?  :crybaby:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The reason being that there are two classifications for owning restricted. Target shooting and collecting.
> 
> Target shooting entails taking it to a CFO approved range. Currently you can't get a long term ATT without belonging to a club. You can get a short term one if you provide an invitation from an approved range for a specific event. This is in Ontario under the auspiciousness' of the current CFO Herr Kommandant, all seeing totally unknowing, bully with a badge, Chris Wyatt. YMMV in other provinces. The government though has just promised to end the Prince John\ Sherriff of Nottingham dictorial, CFO making up their own rules and laws. We'll see.
> 
> If you say you're a collector, you'll never be allowed to take it out of its assigned address and you'll open yourself up to more inspections that any other gun owner.



Yes the concept that you might actually be both is beyond them. I always said is that if you tie a regulations to a requirement such as having to belong to a rifle range, then the CFO/CFC's are obligated to promote the creation of such to ensure the licences does not become a "Mythical permit" (there is a actual phrase for this from a court case, but can't think of it right now).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes the concept that you might actually be both is beyond them. I always said is that if you tie a regulations to a requirement such as having to belong to a rifle range, then the CFO/CFC's are obligated to promote the creation of such to ensure the licences does not become a *"Mythical permit"* (there is a actual phrase for this from a court case, but can't think of it right now).



Authorization to Carry (ATC) ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Aug 2014)

that's the most obvious case. Case law that is not firearms related needs to be brought to bear on the subject. There is a case in First Nation law that speaks to this precisely but I cannot find it.



 Sharp regional disparities in all of these factors meant the Criminal Code procedure for obtaining a legal therapeutic abortion was in practice *illusory* for many Canadian women.  http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/8910-e.htm

www.lss.bc.ca/.../lawyers/practiceResources/preparingAnAboriginalRight...
created an impressive catalogue of case law specific to Aboriginal issues. For defence ... Canada at the time of the arrival of Europeans, and the need to reconcile this fact with .....* illusory by imposing an impossible burden of proof on those claiming this* ..... unstructured discretion to permit the exercising of the right will likely.

Back on Topic, got my used DPMS AR last week, a little banged up, but the inside is pristine, will take it to the range next weekend, still has Iraqi dust on the outside. Interesting to thing who has walked and breathed that dust, considering the region is the birthplace of agriculture.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (12 Aug 2014)

They say it is also the Cradle of Civilization.. one cranky baby.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Aug 2014)

Got my Used DPMS, I am disappointed at the minimal amount of "Magic Poo Dust" it has, was hoping to sell some vials of it to help recoup the costs! the outside is a tad beat up, but the inner bits are pristine. Will get it to the range this weekend.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Nov 2014)

I dont know if its wide spread yet yet but in the latest issue of Canadian defense Review, Cold Canada has placed an add for a special IOP program they are spreading to Canada and making avaliable to all CF members. Offer includes special pricing on the Civi C7 and C8 at for $1,799 and $1,999 respectively. The offer also comes with a Colt Canada/Troy flip up sight, a 2 point sling, a 30/5 mag, a OTIS 300 Cleaning System, a Colt Canada/Franzen Magwell lock, and a pocket sized owners manual. All interested are to contact Korth Group for more information at info@korthgroup.com

Enjoy gents


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Nov 2014)

http://www.coltcanada.com/diemaco-products.html


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (13 Nov 2014)

The IOP pricing is 1500$ and 1650$ for the C7A2 and C8A3 clones, respectively.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Nov 2014)

Call me dumb but what's an "IOP" program?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (13 Nov 2014)

Individual Officer Program.


----------



## MilEME09 (13 Nov 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The IOP pricing is 1500$ and 1650$ for the C7A2 and C8A3 clones, respectively.



Must be a misprint in the magazine then


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (13 Nov 2014)

No, that is the new revised retail price.


----------



## Mister Donut (17 Nov 2014)

If you care about the color of the furniture, mention to Korth that you want it in green, otherwise it will come with black furniture.  I've heard of some guys flipping their green furniture for $300 to collectors because green is no longer being produced and Colt or Korth arranged to have a batch (probably leftovers or returns from another order) available to LE/CF guys only.  

Comes with everything except for the matt:







And yes, seems like most if not all rifles came with the BUIS mounted on backwards.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 Nov 2014)

Okay, that's sexy.

I want the C8... stop making my wallet cry please.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Nov 2014)

I am not guru of AR stuff, but I am very happy with my DPMS AP4 shoots great and has a very nice trigger, certainly can't complain for $499 USD


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (2 Dec 2014)

Quite so. How is the rifling? Never fired and dropped only once type of deal, was it?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Dec 2014)

There was zero wear on the bolt and receiver, nothing but a nice bore to be seen. Banged around, dropped and dusty, but rarely if ever fired.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (15 Dec 2014)

I think they were issued to African security personnel working in the sandbox. I don't recall which country they were from. I believe I read about it in a CGN thread.

I am only an optic away from carbine perfection. Been wanting a 1-4 accupoint or a 1-6 leupy for a while now. Boxing day deals are coming.  :christmas happy:


----------



## KevinB (16 Dec 2014)

Very nice.

Some new optics stuff coming - you may want to wait...


----------



## acen (16 Dec 2014)

With shot show just around the corner, I'm very intrigued by this news on the optic front. Evolutionary or revolutionary?


----------



## Dissident (16 Dec 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Very nice.
> 
> Some new optics stuff coming - you may want to wait...



Why do you have to do this to me...


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (17 Dec 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Very nice.
> 
> Some new optics stuff coming - you may want to wait...



Care to elaborate? We won't tell anyone. Opsec.


----------



## KevinB (18 Dec 2014)

new stuff

Some evolutionary - some revolutionary (ish) -- nothing cheap 

 I will drop some pics and info prior to SHOT,  but have been swore to secrecy until then.


----------



## Dissident (18 Dec 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> new stuff
> 
> Some evolutionary - some revolutionary (ish) -- nothing cheap
> 
> I will drop some pics and info prior to SHOT,  but have been swore to secrecy until then.



COME ON DUDE! For all that is holy, gimme something! I just bought another ACOG and I'm still shopping for a 1-6 or 1-4 for the right price. 

You. Are. Killing. Me.

Can I bribe you with something Arcteryx?


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2014)

I have lots of dead bird  ;D






Can always use more though...


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Dec 2014)

I now have 3x C-79 Elcans and 1x Specter DR....I have a hankering for good glass.

Beat me up about the mounts if you will,but I'm comfortable with them.

I have, however, realized that I now have 2 extra uppers with no lowers for them....so I might have to snag another lower or two....*sigh*....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (26 Dec 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Beat me up about the mounts if you will,but I'm comfortable with them.



Hey, as long as you're aware of their limitations.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Dec 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> new stuff
> 
> Some evolutionary - some revolutionary (ish) -- nothing cheap
> 
> I will drop some pics and info prior to SHOT,  but have been swore to secrecy until then.



Hopefully will get to meet you in person down there


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Dec 2014)

Good article:

Gun Trouble

The rifle that today's infantry uses is little changed since the 1960s—and it is badly flawed. Military lives depend on these cheap composites of metal and plastic. So why can't the richest country in the world give its soldiers better ones? 

The military must change the caliber and cartridge of the guns it gives infantry soldiers. Stoner’s little 5.56-mm cartridge was ideal for softening the recoil of World War II infantry calibers in order to allow fully automatic fire. But today’s cartridge is simply too small for modern combat. Its lack of mass limits its range to less than 400 meters. The optimum caliber for tomorrow’s rifle is between 6.5 and 7 millimeters. The cartridge could be made almost as light as the older brass-cased 5.56-mm by using a plastic shell casing, which is now in final development by the Marine Corps.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/?single_page=true


----------



## acen (29 Dec 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Good article:
> 
> Gun Trouble
> 
> ...



I find this article to be quite ignorant of many facts, the low hanging fruit among them being the cost. Believing that the cost would be about 1k for a rifle, suppressor, and trackingpoint-esque sight is a little out of it, even with massive discounts for volume. The reality is that the cost/benefit analysis ended up with the conclusion that the money would be better spent on a revolutionary change vs the evolutionary ones they've seen so far.

My :2c:


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (29 Dec 2014)

Wrong on so many levels. For instance, pair the 5.56 with a good performing modern projectile and the caliber argument is moot. Modern ammunition has gone a long way since FMJ ball. Dismounted targets are engaged on a regular basis with 40mm HE so I don't understand why we are stuck with FMJ ball in small arms. The range argument is poor too. We're talking personal small arms here. There are more effective tools for reaching out and touching people. Not that it matters anyway because most troops are hardly designated marksmen in the first place. Better COA is to stop wasting millions on dumb ideas and invest in training. 

My :2c: as well.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Dec 2014)

I apparently read a different op-Ed than others.

My main takeaway was that our infantry is not being provided with the best rifle possible which is ridiculous given the cost to replace all infantry rifles in the USA is roughly the cost of one fighter jet.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (29 Dec 2014)

I gave no credence to that argument because he references M16 stories from the Vietnam war era. Let us not forget that the first M16's that were sent to the jungles of Vietnam and issued to the masses had no chrome plating in the chamber and in the barrel. They were issued to troops who were trained on the M14 who had no prior training on the M16. The guns were issued without proper cleaning kits either. Moreover, the ammunition used a dirtier burning powder than the one previously intended to be used. These failures were due to the gun being pressed into service rapidly by the American DOD.

Vietnam era M16 does not equal modern day M16A4/M4 and especially not C7A2/C8A3. Today, allied Spec Ops (the ones that can buy whatever they want) overwhelming buy C8's. His arguments are fascicle and show utter ignorance on the subject.


----------



## acen (29 Dec 2014)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I apparently read a different op-Ed than others.
> 
> My main takeaway was that our infantry is not being provided with the best rifle possible which is ridiculous given the cost to replace all infantry rifles in the USA is roughly the cost of one fighter jet.



Same op-ed, but the supporting arguments for what comprises "the best rifle possible" are what some of us have issue with. Without these arguments, one could arguably say that the M4 is a competitive platform vice the current alternatives. The M4 of today is not the early M16 of which the author does not allude to.

We're not just talking about replacing the rifles/optics/accoutrements though, he's alluding to replacing the calibre, which is a whole other can of worms. Until something is a generational leap ahead of what has come before it, we likely will not see a key NATO partner change calibres.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Dec 2014)

Legacy issues have affected all service rifle purchases of every army. For the M16 it was the powder stock issue, the Snider was a way to make 58,000 new muskets relevant. so on and so forth. Replacing a rifle and calibre causes a whole ripple effect as apparently the French discovered recently that going with anything not bullpup means a complete redesign of all their weapon holders in barracks and in vehicles.


----------



## NavyShooter (15 Jan 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> new stuff
> 
> Some evolutionary - some revolutionary (ish) -- nothing cheap
> 
> I will drop some pics and info prior to SHOT,  but have been swore to secrecy until then.



Is this what you're talking about Kevin?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=944795395545729&set=vb.120357891322821&type=2&theater


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (16 Jan 2015)

lols


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2015)

Anyone heard anything more about this?

http://www.gdcanada.com/news/currentnews/may-26-2014-x3635.html



> *General Dynamics and Colt Canada to Make Data Exchange Possible Between Dismounted Soldiers and C2 Platforms*
> 
> Incorporating Variable Message Format (VMF) into the soldier system ensures seamless integration into Canada's Land Command Support System and brings smartphone capability one step closer to the battlefield.
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Mar 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Anyone heard anything more about this?
> 
> http://www.gdcanada.com/news/currentnews/may-26-2014-x3635.html



I can see us saving millions by not having to teach soldiers hand signals  :


----------



## Dissident (2 Mar 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Anyone heard anything more about this?
> 
> http://www.gdcanada.com/news/currentnews/may-26-2014-x3635.html



Yes!

Not going to lie, I got fan boy excited about this when I listened to someone at Shot this year talk about this. 

Indirect machine gun fire request from platoon commander to MG position or pintle mounted MG: soldier gets a prompt on his device, directs him where to aim and squeeze trigger. First round hit at max range from GL on a target out of LOS (demonstrated last year at Shot apparently). Can integrate drone use. Software capable of tracking barrel wear. On the domestic/civi side the system could be deployed to manage multi-jurisdiction crisis: every responder gets a wrist mounted unit issued when arriving. helping distribute and control assets.

If you are really interested and want the straight dope I can ask the guy I talked to to swing by here?


----------



## Privateer (2 Mar 2015)

Curious:  Is there a concern if the enemy captures a rifle fitted with this equipment?  Can they use the equipment to hack into or disrupt the information system?


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Mar 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Curious:  Is there a concern if the enemy captures a rifle fitted with this equipment?  Can they use the equipment to hack into or disrupt the information system?



Probably very easy to remotely disable the device's access to the system using (if its a smartphone) the unique equipment indentifier. The concern would be to zeroize the information its holding prior to capture, which may or may not be easy to do if the operator is incapacitated.


----------



## cryco (2 Mar 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably very easy to remotely disable the device's access to the system using (if its a smartphone) the unique equipment identifier. The concern would be to zeroize the information its holding prior to capture, which may or may not be easy to do if the operator is incapacitated.



You sir, just taught me a new word. Zeroize. thanks.


----------



## Loachman (2 Mar 2015)

Is texting and shooting more hazardous than drinking and shooting?


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Mar 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Curious:  Is there a concern if the enemy captures a rifle fitted with this equipment?  Can they use the equipment to hack into or disrupt the information system?



If you fabricate it from chocolate, the Infantry would eat it  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Mar 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably very easy to remotely disable the device's access to the system using (if its a smartphone) the unique equipment indentifier. The concern would be to zeroize the information its holding prior to capture, which may or may not be easy to do if the operator is incapacitated.


We are in love with tech. So much so that soon the decision to shoot/not shoot will be taken out of the soldier's hands.

Crap like this will bite us in the a$$.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Mar 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> We are in love with tech. So much so that soon the decision to shoot/not shoot will be taken out of the soldier's hands.
> 
> Crap like this will bite us in the a$$.



Considering it'll be trying to use frequency spectrum in an already crowded battlespace, and it may be possible to Direction Find individual soldiers with this equipment.... lots of stuff to worry about in a near-peer conflict.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Jul 2016)

http://www.alloutdoorstech.com/photo-video/tyan/colt-canada-developing-a-new-combat-rifle-us-marine-corps/



> *Colt Canada is developing a new combat rifle with the US Marine Corps
> *
> 
> While I was conducting research for my article on building a Canadian C8 SFW clone, I found the Royal Canadian Military Institute (RCMI) presentation by the General Manager of Colt Canada. In it, he talked about a number of military weapon projects Colt Canada is currently working on. At 15:45 he talks about a future combat rifle development the US Marine Corps is actively involved with, as well as the Canadian Forces and the British Ministry of Defence.
> ...



interesting to say the least


----------



## ueo (14 Jul 2016)

Wireless networking etc etc. Those in the PBI are being overwhelmed by the Techies. What ever happened to the concept of marksmanship ie. putting accurate aimed rounds effectively on an observed target with the idea being to kill it?


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Jul 2016)

Marksmanship....just ask your unit's Musketry Officer...


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Jul 2016)

I think the idea is to do as much possible with technology to aid the shooter to put more rounds accurately down range as possible, then again better way to do that IMO would be researching better ways to control recoil, better barrel harmonics, maybe a floating sight that doesn't move when the rifle is fired from the target location.


----------



## ueo (15 Jul 2016)

Sorry, in my very humble opinion this sounds very much like a salesman in a Purina checkerboard jacket and spotted bowtie's apologia. Tech usually equals weight and increased maintenance, floating barrels etc are fine for match grade weapons (competition shooters, snipers) but the great mass of soldiers need sound training in the basic shooting skills, solid simple robust weapons and much live fire as can be practically managed, not super weapons. Run a range with 1 relay firing, 1 pulling targets and the remainder undergoing some form of ancillary training (dry grouping springs to mind). Shoot on a monthly basis. Not a new idea! Sometimes looking/going backwards is the better way forward. Just sayin'


----------



## childs56 (15 Jul 2016)

It seems the more high tech we go, We loose our ability to fight in a EMP enviroment. Today those pulses can come from just about anything and anyone.  Some times a simple Riflemen, or a diesel cloud belching engine or a radial engine is what is needed to fight a war. 
The requirements of a Soldier is to have reliable gear, that works well under all conditions and allows a broad range of operation by an even broader range of operator imput. 
The gear must be light weight, accurate and easy to maintain and easy to produce. Specialty equipment that cannot be maintained at the Section level is a disaster in making.


----------



## cld617 (15 Jul 2016)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think the idea is to do as much possible with technology to aid the shooter to put more rounds accurately down range as possible, then again better way to do that IMO would be researching better ways to control recoil, better barrel harmonics, maybe a floating sight that doesn't move when the rifle is fired from the target location.



Take that same money wasted on engineering accuracy into a c7/8 and spend it on ammo to increase the shooters ability, there will be drastically better results than replacing already very capable barrels and optics. Our ammunition is only so capable, there is no sense trying to improve barrel harmonics when it's a gas gun shooting bulk mil ammo.


----------



## ueo (15 Jul 2016)

Didn't Canada have a similar set of events circa 1912 to 1914 with the Ross rifle. A superb, high tech (for the day) weapon best at competitions in clean conditions, but hell in the trenches. My reading indicates most were tossed/traded and the riflemen of the day picked up reliable Enfields. Think, for a moment, would the infantryman in AStan or any other footmobile operational area prefer a rugged, light, easily maintained and adequately ammunitioned weapon ( think Kalishnakov) vice a system designed somewhere in an office to fit budgetary constraints. 

As fpr EMP destroying/disrupting all tech gear, you're left with a system that cannot fill its mandate. Hmmmmmm!

At the risk of starting another war- what about the 5.56 round? Is it not too light to be effective beyond about 100 or so meters? Maybe a 7.62? or 300 Lapua? I think this last might belong in another strand so Mods , if so could you please move it?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2016)

EMP is pretty indiscriminate, people attempting to employ that to neutralize enemy equipment risk zapping their own stuff as well. Narrow, focused beams of EMP might eliminate the one issue, but then you risk missing your target and having a fully functional (insert item here) coming after you.

I do agree that we are seeing more and more effort being put into getting incremental improvements from an old platform. Realistically, there are few tricks left to radically improve the performance of hand held infantry weapons. The most feasible seem to be computerized sighting equipment like TrackingPoint, programable explosive rounds like the XM-25 or making ammunition lighter such as the caseless or telescoped rounds pioneered in the HK G-11 or the LSAT program. More exotic solution like Metalstorm or ceramic materials to replace metallic ones might make weapons lighter and easier to maintain, but do't add a lot to the ability of the soldier to actually strike the target.

I can only imagine the heartaches and issues trying to develop and standardize a new rifle calibre round and get all the NATO allies to adopt it. (7mm might make a good compromise, being powerful enough to deliver a killing blow beyond 300m, but still light enough to allow use in a light or medium machine-gun or automatic rifle. Developing the round will be dead easy compared to the politicking to get it adopted, however).


----------



## Dissident (18 Jul 2016)

New and improved service rifles/carbines with added tech are not mutually exclusive to marksmanship training/increased ammo allotment. I am all for the development/evolving the M16FOW, even though I find the marksmanship training for the forces at large absolutely abysmal. If we didn't try and innovate we would still be in red jackets with muzzle loaded rifles...

I've talked to CC guys about the SWORD system and I can only hope I see it in action before I retire.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jul 2016)

If you were going to issue a new round in another calibre to replace 5.56 and 7.62, I would start with the LMG's first, then rifles for units going overseas and slowly replace the others and using Russian preservation methods on the older rifles for your war stock. Note of caution major calibre changes always seem to be happening as a war breaks out.


----------



## NavyShooter (18 Jul 2016)

The issue with the replacement calibers that they've developed recently (6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .300 Blk) are that they are compromise cartridge designs.

They are a compromise because while they are better in terms of terminal ballistic performance than the 5.56mm NATO rounds, (SS-109/C-77/M-855) they are limited by the fact that they are still designed to fit within the same magazine well as the 5.56mm NATO round.  

Swapping an upper, bolt, and modifying the magazine a bit while keeping the whole lower receiver means that you're not technically replacing the weapon, you're still using an M-16 FOW platform, and just adding other caliber accessories to it.  

Benefits include maintaining the supply chain, the training programs, etc.

Also includes not having to sell the project as a small arms replacement project and get approval.  You're just adding a caliber accessory kit to the platform that you already have in service.

If there is to be a new round, then it should not be limited by the design constraint of the dimensions of a rifle's magazine well.

Strangely, some of the rounds that seem to be providing the best split between terminal ballistics, trajectory, and recoil control are REMARKABLY SIMILAR to the .280 EM2 rounds that the UK developed in the 50's.  (And then had to ditch to adopt the T65 cartridge that became the 7.62 NATO standard.)

So, if you're changing rounds, and changing platforms, you have to consider the ultimate amount of time/trouble/re-training that will follow.  

I like the idea of Case Telescoped ammo, the benefits seem to be there, but the overall cost of switching to it, vs the amount of capability increase that it gives is probably not worth it, unless there was some sort of generational increase in capability, which I don't see.

Would it make sense to start with the MG's first?  I think so.  How about a look at the CT ammo LMG vs the C-9?  Here's what one source has to say about some of it:



> In September 2011, 19 soldiers participated in a two-week assessment of the LSAT light machine gun at Fort Benning, Georgia to demonstrate its capabilities against the M249 SAW. In one test the soldiers, half armed with SAWs and half with LSATs, marched six miles in full combat gear then fired at targets to measure stress and muscle fatigue. Another test had the soldiers sprint 200 yards wearing body armor and a basic load of ammunition, then rapidly engage close-range targets. A third week involved soldiers of the 75th Ranger Regiment performing a squad maneuver live-fire exercise in an urban setting. Feedback from participants favored the LSAT for its lighter weight and decreased recoil. Soldiers remarked the LSAT had better accuracy than the M249. The semi-automatic option made it more viable for room clearing. One Ranger even said the LSAT performed better than the Mk 46 machine gun used by special operations forces.[10] 15 out of 19 soldiers that participated in the assessment said they would prefer using the LSAT in combat rather than the SAW. *The LSAT LMG is 41 percent lighter than the 21.5 lb (9.8 kg) SAW and its ammunition volume is 12 percent less*, enabling all the soldiers that maneuvered the woodland obstacle course to complete it faster when carrying it. Participants also took less time to zero their machine guns when using the LSAT; one soldier failed repeatedly to accurately zero the SAW but successfully zeroed the LSAT on the first try. The LMG users completed the course, on average, one minute and 11 seconds faster than SAW users due to increased mobility given by its shorter length, adjustable stock, and lighter ammo. When firing, gunners felt virtually no recoil from the LSAT LMG.[11] The eight prototype weapons fired a combined 25,000 rounds, moving its cased telescoped ammunition to technology readiness level 7.



Saving that much weight on the LMG would be a very good idea, in my opinion.

Introducing the CT'd ammo for the LMG's would also be a good spot to start.  The LMG is already a separate training stream from the rifle, so it would probably be 'easier' to swap it out in the system for training purposes.  To the bad, you'd lose the commonality between the C-9 and C-7 for ammo, but the LSAT would be lighter enabling more ammo to be carried...not sure where the break-even point is on that trade-off.

NS


----------

