C8 For British Forces?

Originally the C8A1's and C8SFW's where sourced from (then) Diemaco with the 552 EOTECH, it was the quickest way to field a CCO to the CF, as Diemaco had a part number for that weapon and upper with the EO on.

Later weapons where acquired with the C79A2 as I think someone threw a flag on the play about the sourcing of the EO without a CCO trial for the CF.
The EO was in service in what became an element of CANSOFCOM and it was viewed as a quick and easy fix, one would have wished they would have be sourced with the M4 RAS as the SOF issued SFW's where.

On the Elcan, I had a good talk with Andy Webber of Armament Technology, as I had been reliably told that the most recent C79A2 and Specter sights have not been having zero loss issues. I'll just say we owe Andy a lot for his own efforts find and create a solution.
 
KevinB said:
On the Elcan, I had a good talk with Andy Webber of Armament Technology, as I had been reliably told that the most recent C79A2 and Specter sights have not been having zero loss issues. I'll just say we owe Andy a lot for his own efforts find and create a solution.
Click to expand...

The C79A2s are good pieces of kit. I think they are the best part of the C7A2 program.
 
KevinB said:
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.
Click to expand...


I can and will read as I see fit, and the post was to give a snapshot( not a manifesto) of this look at the AR in its early service use 45 years ago. Well theres not much I guess most of us here can post, except "others" findings from actual experience/controlled testing, and us taking them at their word as being honest individuals such as ourselves.

Even real world experiences can be too biased ,such as your claim against ####, or anyone for that matter, to be a real bench mark as to a weapons actual effectiveness in the food chain.
I will continue to read everything I find and through my own experiences and understandings with ballistics and firearms use, i'll try to gleen the actual reality of the facts, as far as my intelligence will allow.:bangHead:
This is a discussion forum, not a "think tank of experts" to ensure our troops have the most effective Rifle that the DND Budget will allow.
I'm sure you are extremely knowledgable on the AR and no doubt considered an expert, but the cut to the chase attitude will lose the effectiveness of your arguement, much like shouting in an arguement, so that in itself, will make your arguement more "Righter".:)
 
Its easy to confuse Colt Canada commercial terms and DND designations of in service rifles. For DND designations its easy, its printed right on the side of the gun. No other designation or descriptor exists, thus the CF never really had a "C8A2" - that's a Colt Canada term.

Units and soldiers do things with optics and their rifles that Ottawa never intended (unathorized mixing and matching).

From DSSPM ie. official line (Ottawa):

There are now three (3) ‘variants’ of the C8 Carbine in inventory.

1. The C8 Carbine-with 14.5” barrel -carrying handle –blackfurniture;
2. The C8 FTHB-with 16” heavy barrel -flat top receiver -blackfurniture;
3. The C8 FTHBA3–with 16” heavy barrel –flat top receiver –greenfurniture -ambidextrous parts –issued w/Triad I C8FTHB (qty 400 produced with this receiver marking);
3a. The C8A3–same –the only difference is C8A3 marking on the receiver.

The C8A3 is an evolutionary or mid-life program upgrade from the C8 carbine variant. It is equipped with ambidextrous controls, low IR signature furniture, 4 position extendable butt to better fit personnel wearing protective equipment, and a Triad-I C8 FTHB rail mount for LAD’s or light sources. The C8A3 can be fitted with a bayonet for close combat. The primary sighting system is the EOTech Holographic sight which is designed for close combat engagement under 200 meters. The rifle has an adjustable front sight, and an adjustable backup sight to supplement the holographic sight.
Click to expand...

I would echo comments from Gunnerlove that there is little wrong with the C79A2-1. Its a good scope, stood up to good abuse and held zero for me. Again note that even though "A3" is prominently marked on the scope its CF designation is C79A2-1.

DC13
 
RememberTheSomme said:
I can and will read as I see fit, and the post was to give a snapshot( not a manifesto) of this look at the AR in its early service use 45 years ago. Well theres not much I guess most of us here can post, except "others" findings from actual experience/controlled testing, and us taking them at their word as being honest individuals such as ourselves.

Even real world experiences can be too biased ,such as your claim against ####, or anyone for that matter, to be a real bench mark as to a weapons actual effectiveness in the food chain.
I will continue to read everything I find and through my own experiences and understandings with ballistics and firearms use, i'll try to gleen the actual reality of the facts, as far as my intelligence will allow.:bangHead:
This is a discussion forum, not a "think tank of experts" to ensure our troops have the most effective Rifle that the DND Budget will allow.
I'm sure you are extremely knowledgable on the AR and no doubt considered an expert, but the cut to the chase attitude will lose the effectiveness of your arguement, much like shouting in an arguement, so that in itself, will make your arguement more "Righter".:)
Click to expand...

yes, I know when I am confronted with an expert who cuts to the chase, I immediately think how much more effectively he could explain things if he beat around the bush instead.

More BS, less facts, that's my motto
 
tjhaile said:
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.
Click to expand...

It has also been suggested recently that a lot of the brass at the time was out of spec and too soft, making the pitted chamber situation even worse.
 
misanthropist said:
yes, I know when I am confronted with an expert who cuts to the chase, I immediately think how much more effectively he could explain things if he beat around the bush instead.

More BS, less facts, that's my motto
Click to expand...

Mis, I posted the Read as a look at the early AR system in its infancy as a service Rifle. It was in response to the previous posters comment relating to it. Everything Kevin stated was correct, the problem arose with a reference to censorship ,don't read something if "I" don't agree with it, and don't post it here. What I posted was only a few sentences of many pages.
Anyone who is widely read and perhaps owns one or several of this platform, or maybe even used it, or are currently using it for what it was originally built for and that was not to punch holes in paper, may find it interesting.
 
KevinB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the details! I got the impression the C7 C8 was a higher quality product once I started to see how much longer the barrels were lasting, compared to other products. They stay accurate for a longer service life too, perhaps more important than the cost of the barrel...
 
The issue with the early guns was primarily the change in powders, to one that was not tested, but available in bulk and resulted in vastly different chamber and port pressures.

The weapon was also not issues with cleaning supplies, and hyped by the Brass as a weapon that did not need cleaning, thus troops went into combat improperly prepared and improperly supplied.

However my boss at work (Lt. Col. Dave Lutz USMC ret.) gives expert testimony on the use in his platoon in RVN. He lubed his bolt carrier once with a piece of fat from a C Ration, as they where never given proer cleaning lubricant, the weapon functioned for the duration of their LLRP for over two weeks and several hundred rounds fired in Combat, Dave also went on to be the father of the M16A2, being the PM as a Maj in the USMC.

As far as the wounding issue, M193 (55gr) ammuntion and M855 (62gr with penetrator) have a very similar fragmentation range in velocity, in fact some lots of M855 fragment at lower velocity ranges as the round is longer and the different material cause more rapid upset and fragmentation that the 55gr Ball round.

Regarding the 1:12 to the 1:14 twist issue, M193 did not stabilize in cold (20F and below, around -7C IIRC) weather in the air with the 1:14 twist. Stabilization in air and human tissue are two totally different things, and to stablize a bullet in flesh you would need a twist around 1:1.
 
KevinB said:
The issue with the early guns was primarily the change in powders, to one that was not tested, but available in bulk and resulted in vastly different chamber and port pressures.

The weapon was also not issues with cleaning supplies, and hyped by the Brass as a weapon that did not need cleaning, thus troops went into combat improperly prepared and improperly supplied.

However my boss at work (Lt. Col. Dave Lutz USMC ret.) gives expert testimony on the use in his platoon in RVN. He lubed his bolt carrier once with a piece of fat from a C Ration, as they where never given proer cleaning lubricant, the weapon functioned for the duration of their LLRP for over two weeks and several hundred rounds fired in Combat, Dave also went on to be the father of the M16A2, being the PM as a Maj in the USMC.

As far as the wounding issue, M193 (55gr) ammuntion and M855 (62gr with penetrator) have a very similar fragmentation range in velocity, in fact some lots of M855 fragment at lower velocity ranges as the round is longer and the different material cause more rapid upset and fragmentation that the 55gr Ball round.

Regarding the 1:12 to the 1:14 twist issue, M193 did not stabilize in cold (20F and below, around -7C IIRC) weather in the air with the 1:14 twist. Stabilization in air and human tissue are two totally different things, and to stablize a bullet in flesh you would need a twist around 1:1.
Click to expand...

Your boss, Lt Col Lutz, is an impeccable resource on the early M-16 in combat and as you say driving the development of the M16A2 one of the finest service rifles made . We can thank him as well for helping deliver the M-4 and its copies, we all love.

Great post Kevin. Much appreciated.:agree:
 
At the time (very early 80's) the Flattop concept had not been refined, as optics of the time where still not really duty ready.

The Canadians ended up adopting the flattop first - and not till 89-90 IIRC.

Even the very first M4's came to USASOC with fixed carry handles in the early 90's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom