Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
4/25/2017 7:42:44 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/29/2001 9:42:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2001 9:48:04 AM EDT by Signals]
The following is an article dated Oct 27, 2001 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 testes 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, Kichener, Ont., and cost upwards of $2000.00 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 know 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 meters.

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 is 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 mid-1980s and was based on America’s M16. It has since been sold to the U.K., the Netherlands and Denmark.”


I know, I know there are a lot of inaccuracies in this article, but I didn't write it.

Signals out

Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:10:51 AM EDT
Let's get this straight:

A Diemaco C-7



vs

An M-4 Sopmod



Hmmmm. Looks like Canadian technology has left the US far behind. This is cause for us to hang our heads in national shame . Puh-leez! The C-7 is a fine rifle but beyond having the silly 3-rnd burst replaced with a proper auto sear there's no other difference between it and an M-16A2. The SAS just got a price break from a former British colony is more like it...
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:31:35 AM EDT
$2000 a rifle?!?

Those crazy Canadians.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:33:47 AM EDT
I really hate to break it to you but the C7 is the Canadian Designation for the M16. It is basically an M16A4. Whoever wrote the aritcle is an idiot
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:40:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hg112:
$2000 a rifle?!?

Those crazy Canadians.


No kidding! Someone in Canada should be enshrined as salesman of the friggin' century for getting $2000 a rifle from the Brits.

The fallas at the Enfield SA80 factory I'm sure are thrilled that their countries best fighters have chosen a 40 year old design over their 21st century vunder-bullpup.

Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:50:30 AM EDT
The sheeple don't know the difference between the M16 and the C7. This is just another article that might as well say "bad United States. You can't do anything right." When in reality it is just a name change.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:52:08 AM EDT
C7 ha ha ha ha

It's Stoner type weapon,it's NOT a new gun it was just up dated.


Guys I have this all new gun,it like a AR-15/M-16 but it's better!It's a XM-15
What M-16 did they test the "C7" with? A1E?
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:53:22 AM EDT
Uh, Guys--


$2000 a rifle?!?

Those crazy Canadians.



$2000 Canadian is only about $47.95 US Dollars.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:55:03 AM EDT

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 testes by the SAS.


Out performed? Wow... amazing. I guess the Imbel FAL might out perform the FN FAL too... or the German G3 might out perform the FMP G3... or the Winchester M1 Garand is really superior or more reliable to the Springfield.

Small but significant changes, very minor changes, make it function better in poor conditions - mud and poor climatic conditions.”


Yeah, so minor that they can't list them or otherwise prove they exist. They are so minor that they are in fact invisible. But isn't it amazing how much more reliable the gun is due to these changes? Laugh.

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”


This is probably the same shtick that they fed the troops when they gave them the SA80. Oh, it's so reliable and it's worth its weight in gold! It's everything you need for the modern battlefield! We tested it, we know!

God... freaking goons. I guess that's one benefit to having a gun ignorant culture, you can piss on the troops and convince them it's really raining.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 10:55:37 AM EDT
I didn't post this article to put down M16. I posted it just as an interesting M16/AR15/C7, etc, article. As for the Colt products, I use them at work and I own three Colt AR15s, and I'm attempting to buy a fourth - great firearms! I also use the C7 in the Canadian Army reserves. Lets face it, both weapons are excellent and I would carry either firearm at work or into combat.


Signals out
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:00:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2001 10:54:47 AM EDT by PitViper]

Originally Posted By AFARR:
Uh, Guys--


$2000 a rifle?!?

Those crazy Canadians.



$2000 Canadian is only about $47.95 US Dollars.



$1268.39 USD at current exchange rates. (So I'm a smartass...LOL)
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:03:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Signals:
I didn't post this article to put down M16.
Signals out


I don't think anyone here is bashing the M16. I personally love the rifle. I own several AR-15's and M16's. We're just laughing at the Brit's bullshit trying to say the C7 is more reliable or otherwise superior to Colt or FN made US M16's.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:03:22 AM EDT
What exactly is better about the C7 and M16? If they're licensed by Colt to manufacture, they're exactly the same? Yes?
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:05:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PitViper:
$1268.39 USD at current exchange rates. (So I'm a smartass...LOL)


So the Brits are paying about $500 more per copy for the C7 in hopes the claimed "very minor" changes are in fact superior to the much less expensive Colt or FN made guns. Laugh.

IDIOTS! That's it, I don't want them as allies anymore. They're too damn stupid.

Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:24:24 AM EDT
For anyone who hasn't caught on yet, YES a C7 is a Canadian M16, in exact specification. It has the round handguards and brass deflector/forward assist like an A2, but has the non-adjustable sights up to 300m (not 400 as the article claims) like the A1. It's a M16A1/A2 hybrid, something I'm sure Bushmaster/DPMS/RRA/ASA can make a civilian copy of easily (for a price).

I don't see how it can "outperform" the M16A2, but then again I doubt a journalist really knows what the hell he's talking about. "Outperform" probably means its just as good as ours, but somehow the Brits got a cheaper contract deal. It's all in the verbage.


Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:25:31 AM EDT
Another printed article from Vancouver Sun dated Oct 27, 2001

“British troops drop U.S. rifle in favour of Canadian-made C7”

"London - When Britain’s elite forces begin operations in earnest in Afghanistan, troopers will be armed with on of the most formidable weapons systems in the world.

In the past year, the 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 $12,000 Cdn - more than double the cost of the U.S. model.

Lieutenant Mark MacIntyre, a Vancouver-based spokesman for the Canadian Armed Forces, said Friday the C7 is already used by the Canadian military.

“It’s our standard-issue rifle,” he said. “We have them with our ships and army units.”

The relatively lightweight weapon - manufactured by Diemco in Kitchener, Ont. plant that has been the site of anti-war demonstrations - 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.”

Fire away boys

Signals out

Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:53:07 AM EDT
Well, I guess Canada needs something to brag about.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 12:12:44 PM EDT
I think the reliability advantage of the C7 rifles comes from the fact that they aren't 25+ years old like the old M16s.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 1:02:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DarkNite:
Let's get this straight:

A Diemaco C-7



vs

An M-4 Sopmod



Hmmmm. Looks like Canadian technology has left the US far behind. This is cause for us to hang our heads in national shame . Puh-leez! The C-7 is a fine rifle but beyond having the silly 3-rnd burst replaced with a proper auto sear there's no other difference between it and an M-16A2. The SAS just got a price break from a former British colony is more like it...



Darknite, don´t take it for granted what the press is saying all the time, more than likely this: is what the Hereford boys will be carrying, the basic weapon is identical(only a slight difference in the barrel profile) to the M4A1, they can smack on the same accessories as the U.S special operations units use, the Elcan and the Diemaco GL are just examples on accessories there.

That´s right, a C8 SFW carbine, bit different from the ordinary C7(btw your M4 doesn´t show)

www.diemaco.com look around for other C8 models.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 1:32:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2001 1:26:09 PM EDT by Garmentless]
Gosh Tuukka!
With that configuration they lose the "advantage" of those (obsolete) A1 sights!
Thanks for the pics!
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 1:54:55 PM EDT
Tuukka:

Yeah, I know the differences between the C7/C8 and A1 varients thereof. I posted the picture of the C7 because the article specified that model, not a C7A1 (which I have a nice forgery of using a Bushmaster 20" HBAR and 4th Gen Elcan) or C8 anything. There were rumors of the SAS using the C-7 during that recent rescue of British personnel in Liberia with the Paras, IIRC. Also the Dutch Marines, which operate closely with the British military, uses the C-7A1. To my knowledge I haven't heard a reliable report of anyone beyond Canada who uses the C-8. If you have additional substantiated info please feel free to post.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 2:04:27 PM EDT
Royal Netherlands Marines use the C7A1 and the C7 LSW.

Royal Netherlands Commando Corps use the C8A1(flattop carbine).

Airmobile units use the C7 and C7A1

Airforce units use the C8(carry handle model).

All but the Marines use the weapons without complaints(except those that liked the FAL better and those that would have opted for the AUG over the Diemaco). The main complaint with the Marines is the LSW version which uses standard 30rnd magazines in a light support role instead of a belt feld 5.56mm. They do however use the FN MAG to great satisfaction.(M240 MG).

Kuiper
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 2:07:33 PM EDT
If you're all done spouting B.S., the C7 *IS* a better rifle than the M16s they'd been using.
It has all the good points of the M16A2 but with the follwing advantages:

- It has the A1 length buttstock that so many of us prefer.

- It has the more durable A1 rear sight, which many of us prefer.

- Most importantly it is full auto and not that POS 3 round burst that we saddle our troops with.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 2:12:10 PM EDT
Did I mention Diemaco hammer forges their barrels? They took the M16 design and refined it around some edges.

Kuiper
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 2:23:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2001 2:17:41 PM EDT by leoAR]
Is this kinda like how Canada "product improved" the Thermold magazine?
Just teasing! I really love Canada. Just look at all the popular comedians from up north that have enriched our entertainment scene.
Mike :)
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 2:30:59 PM EDT
DarkNite, one source specified C8 carbines were used by the SAS in Operation Barras, and the C8 and especially the FT, FTHB and SFW variants would be a logical choice for them.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 3:26:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoplophile:
- It has the A1 length buttstock that so many of us prefer.


I don't know that many people who like short buttstocks. Most everyone I know opts for the A2 stock... anyone of average height anyway (6' or over).


- It has the more durable A1 rear sight, which many of us prefer.


Durable? Laugh, well I've never known the A2 sight to be unreliable or prone to being broken. I've seen some funny stuff done to M16's, but I've never seen a rear sight that's broken... not to say it's never happened, but it's certainly not a common problem by any stretch of the imagination. Personally, I like the ability to be able to select a range vs. a flip over sight roughly calibrated for two range settings.


- Most importantly it is full auto and not that POS 3 round burst that we saddle our troops with.


The M4 is fullauto and the 3rd burst is something I still agree with for regular grunts. SpecOps don't need 3rd burst unless they want it for some reason.

All these "improvements" you're crowing about aren't improvements at all, they are A1 features. You don't go back to the old way of doing things and call them "improvements". They are optional features...

But please share with us how these features you refer to as "improvements" actually improve the functional reliability of the weapon. I didn't know a shorter buttstock, less adjustable rear sight or fullauto trigger improves the reliability of the firing system as claimed by the Brits.

Link Posted: 10/29/2001 3:37:44 PM EDT
I like A1 stocks!
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 3:40:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 4:48:50 PM EDT
Alright, fine - so the 3 rd burst has been fixed, and it's got a theoretical edge due to its barrel/chamber being forged in one operation - but if the Diemacos are so great, how come they don't compete on the civilian market?

Are they antigun, or do they have something to hide about their product? Either/or, they're at the bottom of my purchase list, right after the 'new improved' SA80. :)
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 5:03:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AFARR:
Uh, Guys--


$2000 a rifle?!?

Those crazy Canadians.



$2000 Canadian is only about $47.95 US Dollars.



Actually I think its only 43.50US
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 5:09:24 PM EDT
Tukka and Kuiper:

Thanks for the info regarding the C-7s and C-8s! My first 'project' AR was a C-7A1 clone because I feel it's the best of the full-sized AR breed. My second 'project' AR was an M4gery based on the Bushmaster 14.5/Minicomp M4 upper with TA01NSN and RAS. Of the two I'd recommend the M4 for the conflicts of the post-Cold War era. That's why I proffered a comparison between the C7 and M4 Sopmod.

And of course the bristling I felt when the typically uninformed press touts how superior a gun built under licence beats out the original product built in the good ole USA of course !!
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 5:15:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARMALITE-FAN:

Originally Posted By AFARR:
Uh, Guys--


$2000 a rifle?!?

Those crazy Canadians.



$2000 Canadian is only about $47.95 US Dollars.



Actually I think its only 43.50US



As of 8:25...$2000 CDN = $1269.68 US.

Bradd
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 5:21:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/29/2001 5:17:00 PM EDT by Ulysse_Nardin_1846]
My Colt 20" HBAR has a telescoping stock on it.

At least Canada's got the Gold Mapleleaf.
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 6:49:52 PM EDT
WOW! Whoda' thought that when I bought my bushy w/ A1 sights (it was cheaper and less likely to loose zero) that I would end up with an SAS super gun!! HHMMMM, I only paid $600 for mine though, and that is with a national match barrel that shoots constant 1/2 moa.

With a price like that, the gun should not only be worth its weight in gold, it should be gold!!
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 7:30:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Signals:
The following is an article dated Oct 27, 2001 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, 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 testes by the SAS.



What the hell do testicles have to do with choosing a new weapon? And what freak limey volunteers for this crap?

Just Curious

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Canada for Shania "Poon" Twain. BUT, to let a national treasure such as her her marry an ugly American national is either really nice, or leads me to think you're truly afraid of us and may not even put up a fight if we were to invade and take all your maple syrup.

Sherm
Link Posted: 10/29/2001 11:50:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 12:02:54 AM EDT by Signals]
Yet another pic of a C7 with an Elcan optical sight.



or maybe you prefer something beltfed,



Ya baby ya!

Signals out
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 9:02:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 8:57:13 AM EDT by Signals]
I'm sorry guys, I finally learned how to post a pic, and I'm having fun. Anyways, this is another look at the C7 dressed up.

Signals out

Link Posted: 10/30/2001 9:10:14 AM EDT
I personalllllly like the Ak47 especially the older soviet model's that we stole in our oppression over the soviets...
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 9:45:22 AM EDT


I don't know that many people who like short buttstocks. Most everyone I know opts for the A2 stock... anyone of average height anyway (6' or over).



Except for people who do benchrest type shooting, I know very few people who like the longer stock. I know that I'm just over 6' tall and I prefer the shorter stock.



Durable? Laugh, well I've never known the A2 sight to be unreliable or prone to being broken. I've seen some funny stuff done to M16's, but I've never seen a rear sight that's broken... not to say it's never happened, but



Parts break. It is just that simple. The more parts there are in a machine the more likely some part will break. While you may never have seen one broken in all the funny stuff you've seen, have you ever seen a sight that was set somewhere around 4 or 5 because the grunt was screwing around with the knobs when he got bored on guard duty the night before?



All these "improvements" you're crowing about aren't improvements at all, they are A1 features. You don't go back to the old way of doing things and call them "improvements". They are optional features...



You also can't call features improvements just because they are newer, especially if those features are fixing things that were not broken to begin with. Some things like the shell deflector and the barrel needed to be updated and the C7 includes both of those improvements. The other features of the A2 system are not necessary and simply create a weapon with more parts that can break or wear out.

The three round burst is not only questionable in value, but it means that when firing in semi-auto the way you shold be 99% of the time you get three potentially different trigger pulls which can upset the accuracy that is supposed to be given by the different sights.


Link Posted: 10/30/2001 2:35:34 PM EDT
Guys, that could be $2000 Canadian dollars. That would be like around $1400 US or so last time I checked. Still, I'll stick with a Knight's or Bushmaster M4 if I had to get an AR variant.

themao
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 2:41:18 PM EDT
If I had an A1 buttstock, I'd be sure to have some cracks and bruises on me: with my A2, I put my nose to the carry handle everytime.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 3:39:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 3:33:57 PM EDT by cnatra]
or maybe you prefer something beltfed,



SAW? minimi??

Man I wish I could own one of those!!
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 3:46:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cnatra:
or maybe you prefer something beltfed,




SAW? minimi??

Man I wish I could own one of those!!

Canadian C9, their version of the Minimi/M249. Has flat top for Elcan (think SAW Elcans are around 6x- but I could be wrong) a much better idea than the irons on our saws. A SAW acutally has a chance to hit things at 800m+ with the superheavy barrel and full auto and the optics allow it to use ALL of that.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 4:58:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2001 4:52:48 PM EDT by dragunov]

British Royal Marines from 45 Commando carry out gun drills with their .5 Browning machine guns during the training exercise Saif Sareea 2 in Oman, October 17, 2001. Saif Sareea 2 is a bi-lateral military exercise in Oman involving more than 20,000 troops from the UK and Germany training alongside Omani forces. REUTERS/Steve Lewis/Ministry of Defense/HO
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:04:16 PM EDT

This is a C7?
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 7:12:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thumbhole:
This is a C7?


Must be, I don't see an A2-style turret on the rear sight.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 9:10:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jewbroni:
If I had an A1 buttstock, I'd be sure to have some cracks and bruises on me: with my A2, I put my nose to the carry handle everytime.



No, you just wouldn't have to crane you neck so much.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 9:21:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jewbroni:

Originally Posted By thumbhole:
This is a C7?


Must be, I don't see an A2-style turret on the rear sight.



Yup, but more noticable is the lack of the elevation knob. I can't remember the designation, but there is a varient with a windage knob and a1 sights.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 10:37:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/31/2001 10:31:31 AM EDT by Tailgate]

A silencer can be fitted on the end of the barrel giving the gun sniper capacity.


LOL...I forgot that SILENCERS are what makes firearms "sniper" capable. Silly me. I guess that silencer not only makes the gun totally quiet except for that cool "beeeeeeeaarrrmmmp" sound, but also the bullet is more accurate because it comes out of that big can.

SHEEEESH. You can tell a total moron wrote the article.
Link Posted: 10/31/2001 11:33:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hoplophile:

Originally Posted By Jewbroni:
If I had an A1 buttstock, I'd be sure to have some cracks and bruises on me: with my A2, I put my nose to the carry handle everytime.



No, you just wouldn't have to crane you neck so much.



I don't crane my neck shooting offhand DCM style. I've got a long arm reach, so when my buttstock sits under my right deltoid, my nose just barely touches the end of the handle. I then tuck it another 1/8" of an inch into the handle, and that's where my cheek weld is.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top