C7A2 vs M16A2
- Thread starter PeterPan
- Start date
FWIW -- its not Diemaco anymore -- its Colt Canada...
C7A2 difference from the M16A2
- 4 position Telestock (with H2 buffer) vice M16A2 fixed stock
- Cold hammer forged barrel (same 1:7 twist)
- Safe-R-Auto vice Safe-Semi-Burst
-"weaver" flattop (note not a M1913 spec rail) on the C7A2 and a A2 Carry handle on the A2 (wow)
There are a few more issues - but thats it for a visible down and dirty
- Every try using a search program -- or going to Colt Canada's website?
C7A2 difference from the M16A2
- 4 position Telestock (with H2 buffer) vice M16A2 fixed stock
- Cold hammer forged barrel (same 1:7 twist)
- Safe-R-Auto vice Safe-Semi-Burst
-"weaver" flattop (note not a M1913 spec rail) on the C7A2 and a A2 Carry handle on the A2 (wow)
There are a few more issues - but thats it for a visible down and dirty
- Every try using a search program -- or going to Colt Canada's website?
Craftsman 441
CGN Regular
- Location
- Wainwright
Just toured Colt Canada/Diemaco two days ago. They are now making M1913 uppers and replacing Weavers. Awesome shop to see.
- Location
- East ontario
PeterPan said:
no civie sales
Craftsman 441 said:
I have two D M1913 uppers.
But I did not think they where doing if for CF conventional guns...
They have been doing if for FMS contract and LE guns for several years.
A little bird told me the LCMM-SA still thinks the "Weaver" is better
KevinB said:I have two D M1913 uppers.
But I did not think they where doing if for CF conventional guns...
They have been doing if for FMS contract and LE guns for several years.
A little bird told me the LCMM-SA still thinks the "Weaver" is better
[borat]wow wow we wah[/borat]
Weaver is better????
Last edited:
KevinB said:I have two D M1913 uppers.
But I did not think they where doing if for CF conventional guns...
They have been doing if for FMS contract and LE guns for several years.
A little bird told me the LCMM-SA still thinks the "Weaver" is better
I'm shocked...
I assume this is the thinking of the very same fine folks who brought the CF other top notch solutions like the "tri-rail"?
Craftsman 441
CGN Regular
- Location
- Wainwright
No sadly, no pictures.
None.
First thing they did after giving us 'Hi my name is...' stickers to put on our uniforms
, was ask us if we had cameras, and tell us that we couldn't take pictures. I carried my camera in my pocket the whole time, but didn't any pics at all. sigh
The guy that led our tour was the Quality Coordinator. I asked him specifically if they were making Weaver uppers any more and he told me no, everything is now Picatinny. Looking back, there might have been a misunderstanding between us. I meant CF rifles, and maybe he's talking about current production. The reason the LCMM-Small Arms likes Weaver rails is probably economic.
None.
First thing they did after giving us 'Hi my name is...' stickers to put on our uniforms
, was ask us if we had cameras, and tell us that we couldn't take pictures. I carried my camera in my pocket the whole time, but didn't any pics at all. sighThe guy that led our tour was the Quality Coordinator. I asked him specifically if they were making Weaver uppers any more and he told me no, everything is now Picatinny. Looking back, there might have been a misunderstanding between us. I meant CF rifles, and maybe he's talking about current production. The reason the LCMM-Small Arms likes Weaver rails is probably economic.
- Location
- Calgary, Alberta
Craftsman 441 said:
Picatinny had nothing to do with it, according to the Black Rifle 2, the patent was granted to ARMS.
M1913 "Picatinny" rail was type standardized for NATO.
#### Swan was working on a rail system as well. Canada ended up buying ####'s design from him --
There where a number of flattop design -- inc some real flat top (no recoil lug cuts) ones.
#### Swan was working on a rail system as well. Canada ended up buying ####'s design from him --
There where a number of flattop design -- inc some real flat top (no recoil lug cuts) ones.
KevinB said:I have two D M1913 uppers.
But I did not think they where doing if for CF conventional guns...
They have been doing if for FMS contract and LE guns for several years.
A little bird told me the LCMM-SA still thinks the "Weaver" is better
I guess "better" is a relative term, Kevin. Myself, I prefer 1913 simply because it is the predominant rail now. The Canadian rail is considered better in that:
The Canadian rail pre-dated the american rail by four years - and was designed by #### Swan - who also designed the 1913 - not Picatinny Arsenal.
MIL-STD-1913 is a US military standard not a NATO std. In 1989 the weaver accepted the NATO standard bar bases - the only standard that existed at the time.
The Canadian rail is better, in that:
The Canadian rail has one more slot than the 1913.
The slots are .178" vs .207" (1913) but the weaver locates on the top flat and clamps using the lower angles. Along with the tighter tolerance, that allows for a more accurate and more repeatable fitment. Notice that a weaver does not require the 1913 undercut along the rail.
The 1913 is supposed to locate and clamp by pinching the angles on both sides. This is why there is an undercut: to clear the clamps so that there is no interference with the sides of the reciever. Many accessories do not do this properly.
There is more likelyhood of damaging the sharp edges than the flat upper surface as well.
The Canadian rail is 1.842"-1.856" from the bottom of the upper to the rail - allowing one front sight forging to be used for all weapons - unlike the 1913 which requires 1913 flat tops to use a different front sight forging - marked F. Detachable sights can also be swapped from rifles to carbines without any major changes. The 1913, by comparison is 1.835"-1.845"high.
The profile of the weaver falls completely INSIDE the tolerance of the MIL-STD-1913.
There are some 300,000 weaver rail weapons in use in NATO. Most accessories can be slightly modified to fit - eg the ARMS 40 need .029" ground off the cross bar to fit. There is alraedy a part number for that. That is much cheaper than replacing 300,000 weapons. Many other accesories will fit with no mods at all.
On the other hand, the MIL-STD-1913 is better in that:
It is more widely used NOW,
The slots are wider and can therefore accept wider recoil bars for heavier accessories.
When made to tight tolerances and used with accessories that clamp correctly it is very effective.
I knew I'd dig you out with that
- thanks for the history. I got quite a lot from Dave Lutz (LtCol USMC ret.) who worked with #### in his hiatus from KAC. - but I was missing most of what you related (Dave said you or Gary would have the info)
I for one dont like using "Weaver" since outside the CF and Diemaco there is not weaver spec -- and many have been fooled by that aspect as many companies sell "weaver" spec mounts and rings -- that are their own spec - and simply have a general concept of a cross slot and angled rail.
#### raised the 1913 rail to provide more "meat" -- I understand he sold the patten to the US Mil - hence Picatinny rail now used in common speak.
I remember Diemaco displays at ARMEX in 1989 in Ottawa - that had the flat Diemaco uppers -- and the pinned and bonded rails
I saw an impressive receiver flex demo done - and the Diemaco "weaver" receiver flexed the greatest - due to the thinner upper receiver thickness
- then the 1913
The carry handle uppers flexed the least due to the added (or precisesly less material removed) thickness.
I dont know how much this really matters -- as it also showed the KAC M4 and M5 RAS systems reduced the flex - where the conventional freefloat designs also amplified this -- and all the time USNSWC Crane has been blaming bolt failure on lack of freefloat and the addition of the RAS and weight out on the end of the gun.
SUNRAY - Colt Canada does in fact make AR15's for Colt
I bought one in Fla --- maked MADE IN CANADA.
I figure Colt Canada should start selling in Canada... (yes I am aware of the US Export control on them)
- thanks for the history. I got quite a lot from Dave Lutz (LtCol USMC ret.) who worked with #### in his hiatus from KAC. - but I was missing most of what you related (Dave said you or Gary would have the info)
I for one dont like using "Weaver" since outside the CF and Diemaco there is not weaver spec -- and many have been fooled by that aspect as many companies sell "weaver" spec mounts and rings -- that are their own spec - and simply have a general concept of a cross slot and angled rail.
#### raised the 1913 rail to provide more "meat" -- I understand he sold the patten to the US Mil - hence Picatinny rail now used in common speak.
I remember Diemaco displays at ARMEX in 1989 in Ottawa - that had the flat Diemaco uppers -- and the pinned and bonded rails
I saw an impressive receiver flex demo done - and the Diemaco "weaver" receiver flexed the greatest - due to the thinner upper receiver thickness
- then the 1913
The carry handle uppers flexed the least due to the added (or precisesly less material removed) thickness.
I dont know how much this really matters -- as it also showed the KAC M4 and M5 RAS systems reduced the flex - where the conventional freefloat designs also amplified this -- and all the time USNSWC Crane has been blaming bolt failure on lack of freefloat and the addition of the RAS and weight out on the end of the gun.
SUNRAY - Colt Canada does in fact make AR15's for Colt
I bought one in Fla --- maked MADE IN CANADA.
I figure Colt Canada should start selling in Canada... (yes I am aware of the US Export control on them)
KevinB said:
####'s "pencil tests" were done on early Colt and Picatinny designs that predated the 1913 standard.
KevinB said:
See the dimensions above. The Canadian rail min is only .003" less than the 1913 Max. The weaver has more rigidity due to the thicker rail area and the thinner slots - thanks to #### Swan.
I have seen flex demo vids - but the ones I saw were early prototype rails. remember: Canadian mil stds are either US mil std or exceed them.
