C7A2 have arrived at our unit
- Thread starter mt84
- Start date
NavyShooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- XMU Local .303
The cocking handle will break on a regular basis....the longer "lever" and original tiny axis pin (roll pin) results in a broken axis pin on a distressingly regular basis.
Out of 20 weapons, we've replaced 4 so far.
NS
Out of 20 weapons, we've replaced 4 so far.
NS
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
....... okay, that's just... seriously?
I thought the design would've been a bit slimmer. 
Perhaps I was misinformed about how easily it can be done, but I personally went with someone (a couple of years back) when he took his rifle to the techs and he got it back with the sling loop reversed. Perhaps he had another put on, but I was told that they just flipped it for him. Why is this not possible?
He may have had an after market one placed on or the tech was an idoit and flipped it not realizing it was not ment too do that.
One side has petruding piece that matches up with a hole in the lower. If you filp it and aling the other side, it will not lock in with the hole in your lower. This will cuase the plate to move around and loosing your buffer tube.
I'll say again the CF C7A2 sling loop is 'NOT' reversable!!!!!!!!!!
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
That particular one is made by Badger Ordnance.
The arguement has been made in other places (NOT by me) that pulling back with only one side will cause the cocking handle to bind, but I haven't seen it.
The new cocking handle is SUPPOSED to be designed to allow for a one handed grasp by either shooter, which is why one portion sticks out beyond the sling swivel. The problem with this handle is that the roll pins break. But there is no reason not to #### the weapon with one hand. I have done it, I have taught it, and I have been shown this by some "special high speed" soldiers (of which I am not one).
The new cocking handle is SUPPOSED to be designed to allow for a one handed grasp by either shooter, which is why one portion sticks out beyond the sling swivel. The problem with this handle is that the roll pins break. But there is no reason not to #### the weapon with one hand. I have done it, I have taught it, and I have been shown this by some "special high speed" soldiers (of which I am not one).
The new drills should be used all the time to re-inforce what the soldier will be using while on deployment. Anything else is a waste of time.
There are still a good deal of dinosaurs in the CF who still ##### about people wearing non-issue boots and other kit, ffs... we're fighting a war, and a some people still need to be put to pasture. Maybe they're just afraid of change?
I think most of the gripes about some of the new kit, and the C7A2 in particular, arise from the typically Canadian way of half-assing all of our CF improvements to keep costs down, and then spending even more money than in the first place to fix what's wrong with the 'improvement'.
IMHO... the new A2 is too front heavy. It's bad enough that they put a full length barrel on a carbine butt, but the tri-rail just adds insult to injury. Too cheap to buy shorter barrels and a RIS to replace the handguards? Same thing for the 4-position butt. If you look at the thing, all of the adjustment holes are at the rear... too cheap to drill two more holes? Same thing for the pin that holds the cocking lever in place... so many of those things broke. Too cheap to use a proper pin?
I agree that our old drills need modification, but the problem is that the basic gunfighter stuff doesn't adequately address all possible problems. There are now three schools of thought- old school cold war, and high speed swat team, with deploying soldiers making up the third "what should I do right now" group. I personally don't think that soldiers are taught the new drills properly. I have personally seen MANY soldiers in different places "tap,rack, and fire" over and over and not properly clear their stoppages. The old drills will ALWAYS work but are slower, the new drills OFTEN work but are faster. The issue that causes contention is that most soldiers/instructors/naysayers forget that once "tap,rack and fire" hasn't worked, you move on to further actions. Modern urban ops training THEORY puts emphasis on transition to secondary weapons (pistols) as the first further action, but the REALITY is that 90% of regular soldiers on deployment don't have either a reliable pistol, a proper holster, and most often don't have nearly enough training with a pistol. Yes training needs to improve, but I can see why counter IED training etc., will take precedence over training with a pistol that is not reliable.
