Took my Colt Canada/Diemaco C8 to the range today PICS ADDED PLUS VIDEO

yohann160 said:
...Funny they should do this.
Click to expand...

It's almost like they wanted the carrier to be as heavy as possible, but in no way be able to trip a sear...this alteration should put people off, let alone the price. If it were the EXACT same as an issue C8 (in every part) but semi auto only, then I would consider it at the prices they are asking. I wonder what else is different...
 
Cpt.Flan said:
So what is it then? A ####ing hybrid FA looking that will not work FA? Bolivar you need to test it. Come see me at CFSAC and we will try it in my C7.
Click to expand...

I'M IN! LOL

Regarding the hybrid BCG, I think there is something in US law that you can't have full auto BCG??? So by trimming this little bit of metal it passes as a non-full auto part??? Possibly CC was making BCGs like this to ship to the US and decided to put the same in the Diemaco Rifles. Total speculation on my part.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/492867_Full_Auto_BCG_and_AR15_Rifles.html

Based on the above link, it appears that the NFA (in a manner similar to our CFOs) seems to say the FA BCGs are not a controlled item as they won't make the gun fire full auto....but we really really really don't want you to have one in your gun anyway because you suck and we hate you.
 
angryeyebrows said:
It's almost like they wanted the carrier to be as heavy as possible, but in no way be able to trip a sear...this alteration should put people off, let alone the price. If it were the EXACT same as an issue C8 (in every part) but semi auto only, then I would consider it at the prices they are asking. I wonder what else is different...
Click to expand...

Fascinating. All these changes make no sense to me in a mass production context. You're already making these rifles for various government contracts.. just swap out the FA trigger for a semi one and modify the lower so a FA trigger doesn't fit. Seems like a no brainer. All these changes must be driving up costs, no?
 
It has more to do with Colt Canada's policy than anything else. All the semi-auto LE guns have the same carriers. I was told it was more for liability reasons than anything else because they can say that when the rifle left the factory it was a 100% semi-auto firearm.
 
Rebel Rouser said:
It has more to do with Colt Canada's policy than anything else. All the semi-auto LE guns have the same carriers. I was told it was more for liability reasons than anything else because they can say that when the rifle left the factory it was a 100% semi-auto firearm.
Click to expand...

Interesting in a CYA sort of way. And yet some other manufacturers apparently including Colt U.S. are using M16 bolt carriers.
 
Curious. We know a lot manufacturers use the FA bolts carriers; Colt, DD, KAC, for instance on semi auto AR's. Does this occur on different platforms or is it only a liability issue on AR's?

For example, are new M1 Carbines made with flat bolts because the round ones were introduced for the M2/M3 select fire carbines? Does Springfield Armory produce bolts for M1A's that are different from USGI M14 bolts for the FA liability issue?
 
Thanks for the break-down.

Bummer about the carrier from a novelty perspective, but the carbine has all of the right ingredients!
 
Snapshot said:
Hopefully they don't inadvertently ship one of these neutered bolt carriers in a real C7/C8 or similar.
Click to expand...

They've been producing both select-fire and semi-automatic rifles for a very, very long time. I've never heard of a bolt-carrier mix-up, especially since they test fire and keep a record (with the empty casings they used for the test) of literally every firearm that leaves their factory.

If a C7A2 that started its life as a C7 in 1986 suddenly has a weird catastrophic failure, Colt Canada actually has a file on that rifle, including when the rifle was brought back in for the C7A1 mid-life upgrade in the 90s and the C7A2 mid-life upgrade in the early 2000s.

I did see 15.7" barrel assemblies come from the factory with C7 handguard end caps but those weren't complete rifles.
 
-[Crosshair]- said:
They've been producing both select-fire and semi-automatic rifles for a very, very long time. I've never heard of a bolt-carrier mix-up, especially since they test fire and keep a record (with the empty casings they used for the test) of literally every firearm that leaves their factory.

If a C7A2 that started its life as a C7 in 1986 suddenly has a weird catastrophic failure, Colt Canada actually has a file on that rifle, including when the rifle was brought back in for the C7A1 mid-life upgrade in the 90s and the C7A2 mid-life upgrade in the early 2000s.

I did see 15.7" barrel assemblies come from the factory with C7 handguard end caps but those weren't complete rifles.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So part of the cost of producing at least some rifles at Colt Canada is for testing, record keeping and similar.

This makes sense for CF and maybe other agency weapons that CC sells and services, and of course it is good that they avoid mixing up FA and SA components.

It is a bit harder to see the value of this degree of overhead for civilian firearms - certainly harmless but probably less useful.
 
Neutered bolt carrier or not... I'm seriously considering buying one of the rifles/carbines, swapping the Colt Canada bolt into a spare LMT bolt carrier group i have and calling it a day. The Daniel Defense BCG that I have has thier logo on it that you can see throught the ejection port which would bother me on this particular rifle. Or just find a Colt BCG on the EE... Decisions.
 
Simple point. Ya, it's not a real C8 or C7 but it's still a Colt, a Canadian one with the Big Diemaco trade mark on the receiver and it's made along side it's big brothers by the same craftsmen and women. I bought one and I will be super happy with it. Much more then a mocked up clone which will always be short of one of these. I seriously looked at building a clone for a long time, but in the end I didn't as no matter how many Diemaco parts I managed to scrounge, it would never be a Diemaco with a mocked up lower receiver. As for the BCG, I'm good with the one from Colt, would be better with the FA one, but will I really notice the difference? By the look of that bolt carrier, it's dam close to the FA one, not as cut down as some of the SA ones. In the end, yes, I wish it had the little stylized 'D' trademarks and proofs, cooler receiver markings but they don't. I just know the shop floor it came from and I support them.

Maybe for the second batch, Colt Canada will make the a bit closer to the issue ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom