Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Diemaco is dead. Has been for years.
Aimpoint C8 problem
- Thread starter BC_Guy
- Start date
Diemaco is dead. Has been for years.
Please, the M4 and M4A1's run just as good as any C8/C8A1 or C8SFW I have beein issued.
Half the CF bolts are Colt, and now a ton of Colt barrels are Colt Canada...
Plus new uppers are Picatinny M1913 rail, since it seems Canada finally adopted that spec...
NavyShooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- XMU Local .303
Canada was working on optics mounts on the C-7/C-8 before it was a "fashionable" trend for everyone else to follow. We actually developed a 1X sight for the C1 years ago. (It was made by Leitz....)
I'd have to have a peek at TBR at home, but it seems to me that the Canadian Rail was designed before the existance of the STANAG 1913 rail...we were cutting edge at the time, and by the time the rest of NATO had decided to follow on, the US got involved, and designed their own rail (similar, but not the same.....maybe like MARPAT? so there's no copyright issue?) and that "new" rail got setup as the STANAG, but the CF already had piles of uppers designed to the "CF" standard, and, in the budgetary restraints of the early/mid 90's, waste not, want not.
So, instead of blaming the CF for having crap kit, because it doesn't fit your aftermarket parts, consider the process for a second. We WERE cutting edge, someone with bigger pockets just built a different standard after we'd done the development.
Now, that said, why doesn't the CF upgrade their uppers to the STANAG Spec? Well, you do the math....let's suppose there's 40,000 C-7A1 uppers that need to be changed out.
$200 for a new upper.
That's $8 Million dollars just for the uppers, not including the costs/time associated with installation.
All that so that folks can fit non-issued kit to their weapons....
?
Can you see why the powers that be might not want to make this investment?
Just my thoughts....feel free to disagree.
NS
I'd have to have a peek at TBR at home, but it seems to me that the Canadian Rail was designed before the existance of the STANAG 1913 rail...we were cutting edge at the time, and by the time the rest of NATO had decided to follow on, the US got involved, and designed their own rail (similar, but not the same.....maybe like MARPAT? so there's no copyright issue?) and that "new" rail got setup as the STANAG, but the CF already had piles of uppers designed to the "CF" standard, and, in the budgetary restraints of the early/mid 90's, waste not, want not.
So, instead of blaming the CF for having crap kit, because it doesn't fit your aftermarket parts, consider the process for a second. We WERE cutting edge, someone with bigger pockets just built a different standard after we'd done the development.
Now, that said, why doesn't the CF upgrade their uppers to the STANAG Spec? Well, you do the math....let's suppose there's 40,000 C-7A1 uppers that need to be changed out.
$200 for a new upper.
That's $8 Million dollars just for the uppers, not including the costs/time associated with installation.
All that so that folks can fit non-issued kit to their weapons....
?
Can you see why the powers that be might not want to make this investment?
Just my thoughts....feel free to disagree.
NS
- Location
- On the beach
I may or may not be able to concure with that from experiance (you never know who is listening
)The gerber will eat through that slot faster than a hot file through butter.
Sorry I disagree with your top statement, expect the fact that the US is starting to use Colt Canda parts. I have first hand had problems with M4 parts and problems with parts fitting. Colt Canada does put out a much better produce to Colt hands down.
You are WRONG about the CF changing over to 1913 Picatinny "unless your getting the tech messages before I do
" Some units may have got 1913 upper but its not a standard CF weapon.I may or may not be able to concure with that from experiance (you never know who is listening
The gerber will eat through that slot faster than a hot file through butter.
Just remeber guys if the Wpn tech has to BER uppers because you filed them. Your CO may put a stop to your unit using all non issued sights "so choose your battles carefully"
Also we will know its you since your weapon is issued to you and is serialized
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
Just remeber guys if the Wpn tech has to BER uppers because you filed them. Your CO may put a stop to your unit using all non issued sights "so choose your battles carefully"
Also we will know its you since your weapon is issued to you and is serialized
easier to get spare cross bolts, file them down, then you have a set for your civi rifle and a set for work
I know what I would do, I'de charge you for messing with the rifle. Right now you can use your own kit as long as you don't modify the rifle, don't screw that up.
Just remeber guys if the Wpn tech has to BER uppers because you filed them. Your CO may put a stop to your unit using all non issued sights "so choose your battles carefully"
Also we will know its you since your weapon is issued to you and is serialized
Pays your money takes your chances! I would rather a BUIS that can be fitted with the optic in place as opposed to a piece of plastic that doesn't, and will not hold a zero when removed/replaced.
Some decisions made "outside the wire" right or wrong can be sorted out after the shooting has stopped, at the time if it works go with it and face the music when you get home, alive.
I'm not saying it's right to file a receiver or that anyone should do it, however if the kit issued is not sufficent for it's intended use, it should be replaced, in this case give the troops a decent BUIS and the problem will disappear. better yet to adopt the weapons to the much more compliant NATO STANAG 2324 Rail (MIL-STD-1913 rail).
STANAG 2324 is the NATO compliance agreement which covers mounting of optic and night vision devices, which all parties are required to adopt, Canada is in violation of this standardization at this time with the Weaver rail system.
The cheap solution was the adoption of the Triad rail which would allow (and poorly at that) the fitting of NV Aiming Devices to the C7/C8 family of weapons,this system is a very poor attempt at meeting the STANAG requirement for example. We are not NATO compliant when it comes to optical devices, requiring modifications to the mounts of various NV scopes to suit our 2 decade old at one time "cutting edge" Weaver rails.
I have so far seen only 1 C8FTHB that came with a 1913 spec upper. It had an 05 serial number and I think it may have been an error, that upper probably was for another client. I currently am issued an 07 serial C8FTHB with a non issued KAS RAS2 and an ACOG TA31RCOM4. Any round pin accessory will fit but the higher quality accessories such as Larue with square pins require just the finish between the slot be removed then they will fit. Even the C9a2 with the new rail and proper iron sights put back on is not 1913 spec. I purchased an ACOG TA01 with the reticle for the M249 SAW that came with a beautiful throw lever mount with square pin. 20 seconds of work on the rail and fits perfect.
Odd, the horse's mouth Gary C had said that the CF was adopting the 1913, and while he did not like it as much as the CF rail, that the change was necessary.
The CF dances a different drummer, we (KAC) where non compliant for a CF Thermal requirement, because the CF seems to be running on old tech, rather than adopting a new drop in "in line" thermal system that would not require removing the day sights and the susequent problems with that, they basically require a replacing optical device that acts as the sight and the thermal.
I spent some time offering our solution to a Cdn vendor, but it was all for naught. It like a USMC proposed method, allow for a continuous top rail freefloat, and free float GL, the USMC rationale was that removing the M203 creates a lot of loss of zero issues, and that in training and operationally for many reasons you need to change grenadiers and other devices and altering the POI/POA is unacceptable.
Keep in mind I have a soft spot for the CF given my time in it, and I think that Canadian Solider deserves more than he/she is getting, especially due to the conflict in Afghanistan and it irritates me to no end that the Canadian Forces is not doing all it can to modernize its STANO abilities.
The CF dances a different drummer, we (KAC) where non compliant for a CF Thermal requirement, because the CF seems to be running on old tech, rather than adopting a new drop in "in line" thermal system that would not require removing the day sights and the susequent problems with that, they basically require a replacing optical device that acts as the sight and the thermal.
I spent some time offering our solution to a Cdn vendor, but it was all for naught. It like a USMC proposed method, allow for a continuous top rail freefloat, and free float GL, the USMC rationale was that removing the M203 creates a lot of loss of zero issues, and that in training and operationally for many reasons you need to change grenadiers and other devices and altering the POI/POA is unacceptable.
Keep in mind I have a soft spot for the CF given my time in it, and I think that Canadian Solider deserves more than he/she is getting, especially due to the conflict in Afghanistan and it irritates me to no end that the Canadian Forces is not doing all it can to modernize its STANO abilities.
Gary in the loop?..when?
he is only looking after himself
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
I went to the weapons techs to have the square pins on my American Defense mount milled/filed down. Turns out a sergeant walked in a flipped out.
The only solution I've got left is a riser on order from P&D. Hopefully it works.
The only solution I've got left is a riser on order from P&D. Hopefully it works.
Hi all,
I'm not a super gun-ninja, but what about mounts from either LaRue, American Defense, or ARMS? While some are better than others (hint, hint LaRue), they can all be adjusted to fit "out-of-spec" rails...
Siwy/KevinB, the rumour mill has it that Colt Canada was producing C7 uppers for the CF with picatinny rails...true or lies?
I'm not a super gun-ninja, but what about mounts from either LaRue, American Defense, or ARMS? While some are better than others (hint, hint LaRue), they can all be adjusted to fit "out-of-spec" rails...
Siwy/KevinB, the rumour mill has it that Colt Canada was producing C7 uppers for the CF with picatinny rails...true or lies?
