C7 or M16 for CQC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I just wrote a big long message that described it all but for some reason my computer wanted to delete it... so here we go again..

I am not a fan of the C7 A1/A2 for cqc for the following reasons:
A1: Fixed length of pull is garbage and the overall length of it just makes it really hard to operate when you are moving around at least 4 other guys all kitted up inside small areas. Elcan C79= garbage and is a 3.4x power optics for ranges most of which will be under 25m. You now have to control a meter stick inside tiny areas with people moving all around you.

A2: The Triad mount sucks. It adds so much weight to the front of the gun when you have it loaded up with flashlight and PEQ 2/4 that controlling it inside tight areas is a hassle. Although with the bargain basement POS stocks you can adjust your LOP, the 20" barrel is still a little bit cumbersome to have to move around in the tight areas stated above. Not to mention that I personally broke 3 cocking handles during the gunfighter course (tac-latch breaks off) and ripped up both my gloves and my skin when on the sling attachment plate. And once again... Elcan (don't need to say more)

So that being said... in cases where I don't have the 870 and my only other option is the Browning... ill take the C7 any day.

HH
 
i would have to say the C7 i have used both the C7 and played with the M16 they are prity much the same rifle the only differance i can see is the barrel extention the M16s feed ramp are in the extention and in to a bit of the recever were its not with the C7 so if your rounds use the aluminium recever as a feed ramp or part of it will eroude and cause jams again like the other said the elcan sucks but the with the reciver having a rail its east to place a EOTECH on top which is much better

i would prefer the C8 or M4 over the C7 or M16 the 16" barrel is better for close in fighting or in a vehical again the C8 over the M4 due to the feed ramp issues
 
chev_ranger said:
i would have to say the C7 i have used both the C7 and played with the M16 they are prity much the same rifle the only differance i can see is the barrel extention the M16s feed ramp are in the extention and in to a bit of the recever were its not with the C7 so if your rounds use the aluminium recever as a feed ramp or part of it will eroude and cause jams again like the other said the elcan sucks but the with the reciver having a rail its east to place a EOTECH on top which is much better

i would prefer the C8 or M4 over the C7 or M16 the 16" barrel is better for close in fighting or in a vehical again the C8 over the M4 due to the feed ramp issues
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

I don't know really what to say to the above...
 
Just to pick pepper out of fly sh!t... U guys are are actually talking about CQB (Close quarters Battle), CQC is actually the unarmed combat (this is by canadian military use of the terms anyways, which is fair since its that primary rifle we're discussing)
but nearly the only uses the rifles play in the entire CQCb, CQCI qualifications are bayonet fighting and disarming drills, in which case i actually prefere the A1 since the solid butt makes for harder butt-strokes and smashes.

...For CQB, however, I think anything would be better so long as it didn't have that crap Elcan thing hangin off it. But i havn't got my UOI course yet where most of that training is centralized these days so i cant talk too much about CQB
 
haha, well although i do doubt thats what he was talking about, in the case of striking with the fore-end of the weapon i would have to actually give it to the A2, as the tri-rail could make a nice mess of somebody's skull. The only time the CQC pam adresses muzzle strikes is taking down someone who is trying to grab your rifle, in which case its a straight on jab, but the pam is still also written for the A1, + the A2 usually has utilities on the tri rail any ways. Long story short... i forgot where i was goin with this but i hope someone apreciates my comments anyways lol

Edit to add: Im not saying you cant ever do other a fore-end striking techniques just cuz its not in the CF pam, CQCI's always try to teach versitility and adaptability
 
jollyroger said:
Just to pick pepper out of fly sh!t... U guys are are actually talking about CQB (Close quarters Battle), CQC is actually the unarmed combat (this is by canadian military use of the terms anyways, which is fair since its that primary rifle we're discussing)
Click to expand...

Haha yeah its true... I was going to correct but its too easy to confuse people with so many acronyms... CQC, CQB, UOI, CQCI, MOUT... someone up there is just making them up for fun now...
 
hugehodge83 said:
haha yeah its true... I was going to correct but its too easy to confuse people with so many acronyms... Cqc, cqb, uoi, cqci, mout... Someone up there is just making them up for fun now...
Click to expand...

svbied, fbied, .........

ie suicide vehicle-borne and fruit-borne ...yes, that's right
 
Last edited:
I had a C8 FTHB with an EOTech in the sandbox last year and i loved it. I did however take the tri rail off and put a quadrail on it, put the weight of the add ons more to the center.
 
chev_ranger said:
i would have to say the C7 i have used both the C7 and played with the M16 they are prity much the same rifle the only differance i can see is the barrel extention the M16s feed ramp are in the extention and in to a bit of the recever were its not with the C7 so if your rounds use the aluminium recever as a feed ramp or part of it will eroude and cause jams again like the other said the elcan sucks but the with the reciver having a rail its east to place a EOTECH on top which is much better

i would prefer the C8 or M4 over the C7 or M16 the 16" barrel is better for close in fighting or in a vehical again the C8 over the M4 due to the feed ramp issues
Click to expand...

my head hurts from shaking it so much after reading what you said:slap:
 
chev_ranger said:
i would have to say the C7 i have used both the C7 and played with the M16 they are prity much the same rifle the only differance i can see is the barrel extention the M16s feed ramp are in the extention and in to a bit of the recever were its not with the C7 so if your rounds use the aluminium recever as a feed ramp or part of it will eroude and cause jams again like the other said the elcan sucks but the with the reciver having a rail its east to place a EOTECH on top which is much better

i would prefer the C8 or M4 over the C7 or M16 the 16" barrel is better for close in fighting or in a vehical again the C8 over the M4 due to the feed ramp issues
Click to expand...

Awesomeness has now been achieved.
 
chev_ranger said:
i would have to say the C7 i have used both the C7 and played with the M16 they are prity much the same rifle the only differance i can see is the barrel extention the M16s feed ramp are in the extention and in to a bit of the recever were its not with the C7 so if your rounds use the aluminium recever as a feed ramp or part of it will eroude and cause jams again like the other said the elcan sucks but the with the reciver having a rail its east to place a EOTECH on top which is much better

i would prefer the C8 or M4 over the C7 or M16 the 16" barrel is better for close in fighting or in a vehical again the C8 over the M4 due to the feed ramp issues
Click to expand...

Er....

Wow.

I don't know that this really answers the question.....it just spreads confusion.

Let's step back to the original question, using a C-7 or an M-16.

The C-7 is the iron sighted version (not the C-7A1 or C-7A2 which have optics) and the M-16 is the original Vietnam era rifle (triangular handguards, pencil barrel, 1/12 twist, etc.)

I have fired both.

I have not fired CQB with both.

I will say this though, the C-7 as issued in the 80's/90's had a considerable amount of product improvement in it as compared to the 1960's-70's era M-16's.

Does that make it better for CQB? *shrug* I'll leave that for the experts to pass on....

NS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom