C7 or M16 for CQC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alright, I didn't actually think this thread would get off track so fast. Thread fail for sure...

Basically I was just wondering how 20" barrels handled in real close quarter scenarios. The exact variant of AR15 firearm, or the draw length of stock mattered not, just the barrel length. I guess I should've made that clear.

I understand some people complain about the 20" barrel when getting into and out of or shooting out of vehicles, but what about in buildings or structures, etc.?
 
to answer that...

C7 blow nuts in close quarter battle.

I love my C9

C7's long barrel make it real hard to pull up around corners and a longer exposure time.
If you have the chance, rip the Trash-Can sight off and invest in EOtech or AimPoint.

C8 however does have a shorter barrel but not short enough for me to have made a difference. Maybe if they could have a 10"-14" barrel then it's alright but that would make mounting the M203 rather difficult...

M-16 is NOT, I say again, NOT, a CQB weapon. It was designed for short to medium range jungle combat. So it has nothing to play in the blocks war.

C9, my love and joy, is the best haha I don't care what you guys say. I would take my C9 out to anywhere and everywhere. 200rds of firepower, able to use emergency mags from my crap C7/8. LOVE MY C9 with a passion. It does pretty well in CQB as well when you know how to use it right. *I hate long hallways*

To those of you who knows what I'm talking about.
 
The C7, or C7A1, or C7A2, all get the job done. Yes, it sucks, and you have to tuck the butt right into your shoulder regardless if it is a A1 or A2, but you deal with it. It can be done, and I think it is good for new soldiers, because the barrel length is so long it teaches muzzle control before moving onto shorter weapon systems if you move onto them in your career. The C8, or A1, is superior, and if your on a reflex shooting range all day, you appreciate the weight reduction.
In the end, everything has its trade offs, and it is nice to know if you step back outside you have that added range with the C7.
In the end it is all what you know and train with, and like I said, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Its funny, I seen an old training video while I was in, and it was British Infantry troops doing room clearings with full size FN rifles.
Hey, I never went over to the sandbox, but I was in, and the C7 and C8 worked for me and my friends very well. I even seen C9s and C6s used, hey you just soldier on. My experiences were with live ammo, blank ammo, and yes, sim ammo, in a variey ranges all over Fort Lewis (A freaking massive base might I add) and all worked well. It was more about what you did with what you had than what you had.
It would be nice to have a C7 and a C8, or seperate uppers, but that is to much ?%?&% carry and you only need one gun, besides only Rambo carries more than one gun.
And yes the Good Old Elcan. Well I seen only one problem in my time, yes the first gen lose there zero all the time, but one guy we pushed up through a window frame and it peeled the rubber right back on his Elcan. They are heavy, but rugged with the exception above. Irons are better, and all the old guys always grabbed old school C7s or C8s and always out shot us young guys. The Eotech is great, and it is light weight, but on a Winter Ex you would burn through batteries.
So, on that last note, there is so such thing as a free lunch.
I hope this answered your question abit.
Happy Shooting Shooters.
p.s. And live ammo in a closed room, and the rooms we were in had open ceilings so instructors and saftey staff could walk around the top of a catwalk and watch us, it is really really really loud.
 
A C9 for close range combat? You have to be kidding? You can clear a corner and engage a target faster with a rifle and optical sights are useless for close quarters. COMBAT experience? Any section commander who puts a c9 in the door first is a militia wog for sure.
 
cancer said:
Alright, I didn't actually think this thread would get off track so fast. Thread fail for sure...

Basically I was just wondering how 20" barrels handled in real close quarter scenarios. The exact variant of AR15 firearm, or the draw length of stock mattered not, just the barrel length. I guess I should've made that clear.

I understand some people complain about the 20" barrel when getting into and out of or shooting out of vehicles, but what about in buildings or structures, etc.?
Click to expand...

Maybe this is a question better asked of some Marine on some of the forums down south. Also, I'd think that length of pull would make a pretty big deal.
 
Every Section has x2 C9 gunners, and I suppose they believed they were comming in with the section. I have no combat experiece, and I was no high ranking NCO, but thats what we did. They had C9 gunners even practicing reflexsive shooting as well, it sucked to be them for sure.
And I fully agree, the C7 and an Optical sight blows.
But we didnt have funding like a SF unit for C8A2 with 16in heavy barrels and Elcan Specters you can switch from 1 power to 4 power.
But thats what they had us doing right or wrong, and thats that. I did get an oppurtunity to use a C8 light barrel with irons and it was perfect, and it felt like a feather after using the C7A1 for 2 years in 04.
And I am not defending our training criteria or cutting it down, or agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, those are just my personal expeierences.
Take them as you well.
p.s. And yes it was extreme to bring a C6 gunner(with blanks, but come on train the way you fight) into clear trenches and dumb, I dont know who made that call, it is suppose to support the platoon, and its a area weapon.
I am no expert, and have no opertional CQB or CQC experience, but those were my experiences right or wrong, and I dont neccesarily agree or disgree with what I did or saw, but it was what it was, just trying to pass on some information from what I saw.
The Old NCOs and Officers loved the C8 though in Somaili and abroad they told me, the C8 with a carry handle and pencil barrel, and lightness and simplicity, and the Americans liked it too. The C8 was KISS indeed by definition.
 
Last edited:
this arguement was the whole reason the brits changed from the fn( which was a real nightmare in the city) to the sa80- trouble is , they still didn't get it right- point is that ANY conventional rifle sucks wind in close quarters- what you want is an smg, esp the stirling or the uzi-and since those are out of favor now, the tavor- in nam, there was this thing called the bushmaster arm pistol that was away ahead of it's time had it been equipped with a lazer and solved the misfeeding problem- but only the spooks and flyboys had them
 
Yeah it was crazy watching this old 70s video of these guys using full size FN rifles clear rooms. They did it, but sheshhh. Times have changed for sure. I guess if you hit a guy at close range with an FN he is going down.
But yeah back on track, the C7 worked, it wasnt ideal, but it worked.
 
Speaking of old terms, for close up urban fghting, here are some, but FIBUA takes the cake from the FN era of infantryman.
CQB (Close Quater Battle), CQC (Close Quarter Combat), this term in the CF refers to hand to hand combat though, and if you really want an old term, FIBUA (Fighting in Built Up Areas).
 
Back to the original question.

C-7 (iron sight) vs M-16 (Vietnam era).

I would think that the slightly more modern and improved C-7 would be preffered over a vietnam era M-16, though, as a platform, the following applies:

Both are Full Auto
Both have the same sights
Both have similar ergonomics

The C-7 is slightly heavier
The C-7 has a slightly thicker barrel
The C-7 uses heavier bullets with a steel penetrator

The M-16 is lighter

I see a number of advantages to the C-7 over the M-16, but I have no experience to add in beyond the points above.

NS
 
jamiejaf said:
A C9 for close range combat? You have to be kidding? You can clear a corner and engage a target faster with a rifle and optical sights are useless for close quarters. COMBAT experience? Any section commander who puts a c9 in the door first is a militia wog for sure.
Click to expand...

Well situation and resources available would dictate how you employ Sect wpns. C9 as first guy in when FIBUA....well open bolt firing wpn isn't ideal nor easy for that matter(even the short barrel, stock version) but it can and has been done.
 
So again back to the question at hand. M16 or C7 in close combat? No, just live fire excercises.
In Fort Benning, I had a M16A4, the burst mode sucked for clearing trenches, where as the C7 you can fire on fullauto to clear a trench, and I didnt like the knights rails to be honest. The C7 had the narrower handguards and the knights were thick, but thats me.

The C7 like I said, for the kill houses in Fort Lewis, worked fine. And like I said the M16 or C7 is a heavy weight and the guys with C8s always get less tired and shoot better on reflexsive shooting ranges.
And if your talking C7 up against a M16A1, well does it matter, they both work. I guess for old school FIBUA skills where you spray the room down, the C7 in full auto is it.
But I would prefer the M16a1 because of the lightness, but thats me. If your ever served in the Infantry you learn to hate weight, lol. Both are good in the end. And I bet anyone reading any of this that ever was in a CQB unfortunately, is probably laughing or getting mad at all of this. What is better, is what you are good with, and train with. Im no combat VET, but you always trian the way you fight and go to your lowest forms of training in combat, and I doubt what type of gun you have is on your mind when getting shot at.
Both the C7 and M16 are both winners either way!
 
In CQB, I would just look over top of my Elcan, where the little stubs are on top, and at 2 yards or 7 yards, you just shoot as I found out with sim ammo or blanks. Theres no time for X ring hits, you just shoot, and move along and do your drills.

Im no Vet or expert, just a bunch of Excercise experiences, thankfully no real life gun fights.
 
It's threads like this that really make me glad I not longer mod here.


To the original poster.
The longer the barrel to harder to manuver. Try to pie a corner with a 20" barrel you have to push back so far off the corner so you don't flag your muzzle past it.

Hoddie -- so what if 100% of your adult life has been doing this ;)
 
Navyshooter, no disrespect to you or your comments. You have the background to comment on such topics.
It just seems as of late, that there is a huge influx of internet commandos who think they know more than they should. Yes I only have 300 posts, but I comment when it is relevant, not when I need to boost my post count.
Anyway, I'm just saying......

Kev, 1990 was a long time ago.:D
 
KevinB said:
To the original poster.
The longer the barrel to harder to manuver. Try to pie a corner with a 20" barrel you have to push back so far off the corner so you don't flag your muzzle past it.
Click to expand...
Is a 16" barrel that much better? This thread makes my head hurt. It sounds like a SMG is the way to go again, but everyone with applicable experience says AR15 variant or nothing these days.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom