Please tell me the Colt Canada fascination??

My understanding is that with the IUR uppers, you have t take it to an armourer to have the barrel removed/changed, is that correct?

I ended up standardizing on LMT because of that...not entirely but a big part of it.
 
IMO, if ATRS or NEA had the Canadian military and LE contracts then the fascination would be on those brands. People for the most part love the idea of owning a firearm that the military/LE use or have used.

I owned a Colt LE/AR15A4 for a few months. Gun worked great, fit and finish was ok but so did my 650.00 Norinco CQA. I parted out the Colt and definitely made a few bucks :d

Lots of people crazy over Glocks to but mainly because they are pretty much the most common issued sidearm in North America and that adds a cool factor :cool:
 
greentips said:
Most of the "improvements" are in the form of converting the original paper "blue prints" into metric CAD file. This sounds like just a transcribing job but little things started coming out in this kind of work, which means people had to sit down, sort things out and make changes. This also means all the tolerance must be higher than the original, otherwise it won't be backwards compatible. Back in the late 80's, this could be a painful manpower intensive process (not as bad as in the WW2 with drafting tables...). Most of the places were still wielding sheet metal boxes in the 80's ( FN, Beretta, HK....other than Steyr who used plastic and aluminium die casting)

What we accepted as standard these days, such as "shot peening" of bolt, is the result of Diemaco's work back in those days. Other things like ditching the A2 sight for the A1 style sight is not really an improvement, just a change. That '180' improvements figure includes both.

The biggest technology change is the use of GFM CHF machines to make barrels. Colt in the US still use button rifling, which takes like 30 to 45 minutes to make one barrel.Fine if you have multiple machines that do 6 barrels each that are inherited from the days of Vietnam war, but you can use 1 CHF machines to do the same thing in like 5 minutes. Crunch the number, there is a reason no one uses button rifling to do mass production other than Colt. The problem is that Colt didn't have experience with CHF, so that technology came from Austria and basically Diemaco would need to hire GFM and possibly additional consultants to get this set up. The same technology sold to FN Herstal to make minimi / C9.

These things add up and that costed a million dollars to Cdn tax payers.
Click to expand...

Lots of nopes in this.

The C7/C8 were never converted to metric, nor did SARP use CAD - that came much later.

There was an in depth tolerance study done, and many of the TDP tolerances processes and material specs were tightened up. Some of the 168 changes were dimensional, however some were improved heat treating, expanded testing, etc. Nearly all the tolerances of the CAF TDP fall inside the US TDP.

Also, having spent a lot of time around both, your characterization of button rifling is way off. The coining process with the button takes about 5 seconds - less than the time to put a new barrel on the fixture. The extra time comes when the chamber has to be cut as a separate operation. Some button rifling produces chatter, but this is inconsequential in a M4 or M16 barrel. On a match barrel extra time is often spent on a button barrel to lap the bore. The forge process takes 5 minutes, with under two minutes of actual hammer forging. The process is much more expensive up front, but eventually produces better barrels for close to the same cost - not including the material. The blanks for the CHF Diemaco barrels cost roughly the same as a finished M4 barrel assembly.

The cold hammer forge process Canada wanted was not developed by GFM. They said it was impossible. The alloy required, and the Diemaco process were developed entirely by Diemaco.

Diemaco did not sell the process to FN. FN developed their own different process. However Diemaco did make the C9 barrels for Canada and some other export customers. These are C7 barrels with a different profile. No internal changes were required to make a machine gun barrel.

But other than that, bang on. :)
 
I remember a day when we were told Diemaco would never sell to the public...

Time passed, Colt bought Diemaco & now I own a Colt Canada Diemaco rifle.

For me, it's simply nice to have a Canadian made AR15 I was told I would never own...

:dancingbanana:

Cheers
Jay
 
CC. Makes a superior product. Well made tough and beyond the standard TDP I'd say Colt USA. Nothing against Colt USA excellent rifles.

The current offerings are actually fantastic and comparing in price to it competitors in Canada I would say it is the better deal by a bit for sure. Not that the other products on the market do not have there merits as well. CC should be on the Top of any list for standard DI AR15, there is no other above it for the total package.

Yes there are some features on other companies but they they do not adhere to the TDP in its entirety like a CC rifle.

So in conclusion for that $2500 range I say Colt Canada is the best option.
 
Jay said:
I remember a day when we were told Diemaco would never sell to the public...

Time passed, Colt bought Diemaco & now I own a Colt Canada Diemaco rifle.

For me, it's simply nice to have a Canadian made AR15 I was told I would never own...

:dancingbanana:

Cheers
Jay
Click to expand...

Being a business guy it always amazes me to hear a company will not sell its products to a certain market.
why not? is it ethics? values? existing contracts?
why as a CEO would you ever, ever, put yourself in a situation where you only have one customer?
the level of full retardness is beyond comprehension
 
mikethebike said:
Being a business guy it always amazes me to hear a company will not sell its products to a certain market.
why not? is it ethics? values? existing contracts?
why as a CEO would you ever, ever, put yourself in a situation where you only have one customer?
the level of full retardness is beyond comprehension
Click to expand...

Agreed. But back in the Diemaco days, wasn't it centred on gov contracts?

Cheers
Jay
 
Jay said:
Agreed. But back in the Diemaco days, wasn't it centred on gov contracts?

Cheers
Jay
Click to expand...

Many of the COlt Canada/Diemaco employees and staff, management had a disdain for there rifles being owned by civilians. I encountered this on several occasions. Not all of them but there was a lot. It was the political climate of the time though and the internet did not give us a powerful voice till the last 12 years to uncuck the masses and fightback. Plus Diemaco being sold.
 
Stoner99 said:
Many of the COlt Canada/Diemaco employees and staff, management had a disdain for there rifles being owned by civilians. I encountered this on several occasions. Not all of them but there was a lot. It was the political climate of the time though and the internet did not give us a powerful voice till the last 12 years to uncuck the masses and fightback. Plus Diemaco being sold.
Click to expand...

this type of attitude, god I would have fired them all with a kick in the behind out the front door
tentamount to ferrari deciding, nope we only sell ferraris to professional race car drivers
cause we are ferrari, we have a reputatin, we have our racing heritage to protect...
yah... look at how much money ferrari makes selling cars to regular blokes
 
Stoner99 said:
Many of the COlt Canada/Diemaco employees and staff, management had a disdain for there rifles being owned by civilians. I encountered this on several occasions. Not all of them but there was a lot. It was the political climate of the time though and the internet did not give us a powerful voice till the last 12 years to uncuck the masses and fightback. Plus Diemaco being sold.
Click to expand...

Not surprised. There's a well known military watch manufacturer that sells to police and military, yet they are anti-gun.
 
Jay said:
I remember a day when we were told Diemaco would never sell to the public...

Time passed, Colt bought Diemaco & now I own a Colt Canada Diemaco rifle.

For me, it's simply nice to have a Canadian made AR15 I was told I would never own...

:dancingbanana:

Cheers
Jay
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. It's a damn nice rifle too.
 
mikethebike said:
this type of attitude, god I would have fired them all with a kick in the behind out the front door
tentamount to ferrari deciding, nope we only sell ferraris to professional race car drivers
cause we are ferrari, we have a reputatin, we have our racing heritage to protect...
yah... look at how much money ferrari makes selling cars to regular blokes
Click to expand...

Enzo Ferrari was well known for disdaining road cars and stating that they only built road cars to pay for their racing programs.
 
It is very simple for me. Due to certain lifestyle choices, I ended up staking my life on (and defending my life with) Diemaco/Colt Canada products over the better part of 32 years' infantry service in peace and war. None of their rifles or carbines has ever let me down if I did my part WRT preventative and post-firing maintenance. As a result of that close working relationship I have a personal affinity for CC products and trust them to perform implicitly. Because of this they are worth a modest "premium" upcharge to me, perhaps not to you. I would NOT stake my life on another brand without some extensive personal testing and validation. DD, KAC, LMT, etc aĺl produce excellent rifles, but I wouldn't trust one the way that I trust CC right out out of the factory packaging. For me, THAT is the CC "fascination"...
 
Ask a vet who has used a CA7 in combat and they will tell you that it's the best rifle..
The C7 was first used in Bosnia and it bested the rifle that opposition used.
When you can see the fit and finish of a C7 vs other A15.
It's like buy a BMW vs a Chevy... They both get the work done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom