C8 For British Forces?

[shortandlong]

I'm not doubting that at all. I was commenting on the fact that he used the Falklands example to back up his claim that the British was issued the M16 before the US was...or am I completely out to lunch here? Am I missing an inside joke or something?

my conclusion :

somebody made a typo or the post "read" wrong.

I got the point after shelldrake's post

they way i read it he was saying the Americans got the M16 first and deployed to the Falklands with it .........huh? It wasn't that long ago

 

[enefgee]

Uh oh, Captain Highliner's finally snapped, no more fishing boats for him - he's got himself a contract with IIL.

 

[Leg]

MV for C7 940 mps (3100 fps), MV for C8 868 mps (2800 fps).

300 fps does make a difference in terminal ballistics.

You have less than 5,000 C8 and more than 80,000 C7.

A C7 is lethal further than an AK, the C8 is deemed not.

Try reading what I wrote. I'm talking about the difference between a 20" and 16" barrel. You have quoted velocity for a C8 with 14.5" barrel. Why do you think they extended the length to 15.9" for the C8A3?

 

[Leg]

Exactly the MV at 200+ meters is not there with the C8, I would love to just carry a C8A3. Just for the LCF alone, the lighter weight is also good.

You obviously don't realize that the C8A3 is heavier than a C7A2 when using identical optics.

 

[KevinB]

Several year ago I chrono'd C77 from 20", 16", and 14.5" barrels

As Big red noted C77 is not exactly the greatest Anti-Personnel round available.

However I can tell you from experience that fragmenting is nice but not necessary, I've shot people vastly further than the fragmenting distance of the round and they aren't logging into the internet to #####...

Black Hill's 70gr Brown Tip Optimized 5.56mm works pretty nicely in short barrel guns and the accuracy is top notch as well as the round has flash suppressant in the powder so Timmy Taliban does not get a great picture of where you just popped his buddy from.

 

[KevinB]

Read #### Culvers account of the M-16 in Vietnam and after. He used it as a Marine Rifleman and i would say if there were more like him, the US Marine Corp would still be issued M-14s,or equivalent. Great writing on alot of the teething problems like having slam fires on dirty chambers,changing powders mid stream being the cause, and having two rifleman having this happen in 5 minutes in his platoon during a firefight. Alot of problems being corrected while a shooting war was going on and the subsequent new problems following.

The engineers and other support troops being the most popular people because they still were issued the m-14 and the Rifleman wanted them. The M193s accuracy improvement going from 1/14 to 1/12 but the tumble wounding effectiveness loss accordingly.
Qualifying on the range being in the butts at the Marines 500 yd max riflemans distance and having the M193 unable to penetate the target backing fillers used. He said the Marine Rifle squads effectiveness was reduced from 500 yds to less than 300yds with the M-16. He states that the M-16 s accuracy was never a problem after 1 in 12 and faster. ETc, ETc

If you want to see where the AR came from and where it is today , it's a good read.

Nice but entitly not back by facts.

The wounding issue has been bunked again and again by gel tests and life tissue testing.

Please stop reading someones one agenda and republishing it.

 

[KevinB]

C8SFW barrel (or C8A3 whatever people want to call it now

Colt M4A1 Heavy Barrel (SOCOM and now current standard on M4A1's for Big Army --- yes they are getting M4A1's now)

 

[Undergiver]

You obviously don't realize that the C8A3 is heavier than a C7A2 when using identical optics.

They don't use identical sights. C79 is issue for the C7A2 and the Eotech is for the C8A3

Weight
C7A2- Without Magazine/Sling/Optical Sight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.34 kg (7.36 lb)

C8A3- Without Magazine and Sling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 kg (7.12 lb)

C7A2 with C79 weight is 7.58 lb
C8A3 with Eotech 552 is 7.20 lb

ok so it's only 38oz but to say the C8A3 is heavier is false.

 

[Gun Plumber]

C8A3 is most assuredly issued with the C79. The EO sight is supplimentary kit but this is not the point. For normal engagement for normal troops doing their normal job the C8 HRFT is superior and handles better. We don't even try to shoot peopel at distance because the 25 as well as the C9 or C6s are already making rags out of them. Perhaps with better ammo and some marksmanship trg we would be able to but we certainly don't need to. Listen to KevinB. I agree and have never seen anyone shot with a 556 (or a 762 for that matter) not drop like a wet sack of ####e. SF can carry whatever they can get away with. They took the worst part of the C8 (tele-stock) and the worst of the C7 (long fake heavy brl) and combined them. Add that stupid cocking handle and ambi mag release and you have yourself a grade A piece of front heavy crap. The A2's brl is only heavy at the end. The C8 Flat is heavy all the way down.
Oh, and the SA80 is still garbage.

 

[ZuluMike]

C7A2 with C79 weight is 7.58 lb
C8A3 with Eotech 552 is 7.20 lb

ok so it's only 38oz but to say the C8A3 is heavier is false.

I think the difference in ounces is closer to 6 than 36oz. The C7 is not 2 1/4 lbs (36oz) heavier than the C8A3.

Back in 2007 I cronographed a bunch of C8's (14.5"), a C8HB (15.8") and a C7A1 (20") velocities averaged 2805, 2911, and 3123 fps respectively from the same lot of C77 ammo. The C8's had seen quite a bit of use compared to the C8HB (new) and the C7A1.

 

[tjhaile]

I Bet the Brits actually CLEANED their rifles in Borneo unlike the Yanks in Vietnam

They were probably also using different powder from the WC 846 that was causing problems for the Americans. From what I have read on the subject, it seems that there was no single cause to the problems with the M16, but rather a number of possible causes, which may or may not have been present in individual cases:

-Change in propellant to one that was both dirtier and with a different pressure curve.
-Pitted chambers.
-Out of spec chambers.
-Improper maintenance.

 

[KevinB]

Change in the propellant, combined with no cleaning tools
Resultant issues abounded

 

[greentips]

Olin recycled old powder in storage when 5.56 was first in huge demand back in the early days of M16 - the result was calcium deposit in the gas tube.

 

[greentips]

The math does not add - C79 itself is a 2lb affair. Eotech is like 11oz.

The C8 barrel is stupidity to ensure legacy GL will work - they should just give people standalone adaptor for the 203A1.

They don't use identical sights. C79 is issue for the C7A2 and the Eotech is for the C8A3

Weight
C7A2- Without Magazine/Sling/Optical Sight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.34 kg (7.36 lb)

C8A3- Without Magazine and Sling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 kg (7.12 lb)

C7A2 with C79 weight is 7.58 lb
C8A3 with Eotech 552 is 7.20 lb

ok so it's only 38oz but to say the C8A3 is heavier is false.

 

[misanthropist]

However I can tell you from experience that fragmenting is nice but not necessary, I've shot people vastly further than the fragmenting distance of the round and they aren't logging into the internet to #####...

Only because the rounds passed almost harmlessly through the target and then hit their computer or modem, thus eliminating their ability to post, I bet.

Come to think of it that would be a great service to the internet in a lot of cases. Could a list of "mom's basements" be drawn up for you so the herd could be culled a bit?

 

[Undergiver]

The math does not add - C79 itself is a 2lb affair. Eotech is like 11oz.

The C8 barrel is stupidity to ensure legacy GL will work - they should just give people standalone adaptor for the 203A1.

redid the math the C79 weighs 1.41 lbs, the EOtech 552 weighs 1/2 lb

 

[Gunnerlove]

A worker at Colt Canada makes probroably 40% more than a cpl who is just doing his regular job. On the other hand, that gave work to a private company for the last 10 years.....But again, this is how government keeps these companies open.

A weapons tech who has been a Cpl for 4 years and is trades qualified is paid a base salary of $5362 a month ($64 344 annual). If working the normal 7.5 hour day in Garrison he makes $38.30 an hour. Then there is always PLD and FOA to bump it a little higher.

 

[RickR1100]

During the Falklands a lot of transport was supposed to be conducted by helicopter, but a lot of them had been lost during naval engagements. So the guys had to hump all the way with tons of kit...

Yea, I believe they needed remaining helicopters for medevac, resupply, recon...not enough for regular trooplift. So "black Cadillac's" it is!


BTW: my understanding is that it indeed was the C8 SFW variant that was bought. A major factor was that the Diemaco was longer lasting than competing systems, and retained accuracy better for longer. I remember in the 1980's seeing an ad for Diemaco's barrel life, being that it's mid-life in terms of accuracy for operational readiness was listed at a then-high 25,000 rounds. Consider that at that time, some European LMG's had barrel life of 3-5000 rounds. I know darn well our C9's barrels seemed to cope very well with high round counts, or at least that's what it seemed like to me when I was in.

Reminds me of learning about the Inglis Hi-powers, that they were built very tough, built to last a literal lifetime of army use.

 

[KevinB]

Colt Canada/Diemaco uses a higher grade of CMV Milspec steel in their barrels, combined with CHF'ing and then precision chroming, it make a high grade long lasting barrel. (Bascially a M249 and M240 steel spec barrel)

HK nitrides their barrels and uses the highest grade of CMV barrel steel (which Colt Canada uses on specific runs and C9/C6 barrels IIRC) and gets about 30k from a CHF barrel.


* There are three grades of Milspec barrel steel, which people often misunderstand the fact that their "milspec barrel" is the low end of the Military barrel steels. Still good steel and better barrel than one made by barrel out of 4150 but with a low chrome vanadium content that it does not qualify for the milspec, and better than other barrels that may or may not know what went into them...

Having seen a number of endurance tests I find it hard to find a better barrel than a Colt Canada barrel in a 5.56mm gun.

 

[Leg]

They don't use identical sights. C79 is issue for the C7A2 and the Eotech is for the C8A3

Weight
C7A2- Without Magazine/Sling/Optical Sight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.34 kg (7.36 lb)

C8A3- Without Magazine and Sling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.23 kg (7.12 lb)

C7A2 with C79 weight is 7.58 lb
C8A3 with Eotech 552 is 7.20 lb

ok so it's only 38oz but to say the C8A3 is heavier is false.

Where are you getting your numbers from? Not that I doubt you, don't have an accurate scale at work so I can't verify myself.

Issued with EOTech? Sometimes. I know when we first got our C8FTHB they came with ELCANs. Sometime prior to deploying they all seemed to have been switched out with the EOTech which made some happy but not all. Then we get overseas and one of the first things to go was the EOTech, replaced it with the ELCAN. The ELCAN isn't the ideal optic but it was the best issued piece of equipment for our task.