Canadian AR question (AT vs CC vs DLASK)

DILLIGAF said:
I recal a video of a 1000 yard shoot on snipershide with a barrel duct taped to a 2x4. Free Floating dosent equal to accuracy....
Click to expand...

The point here however is consistancy in the repeated test shots.

If it's well duct-taped on all shots (consistancy) than it'll shoot as well as it will in that particular setting.

Freefloat the barrel then change the parameters of that test, I would certainly expect it to shoot differently.
 
If you put pressure on the barrel of c7, especially by grabbing the farthest end of the hand guard, you can put as much as 8 to 10 MOA shift in the POI.

That is the reason all the competition shooters don't touch the barrel. Free floating hand guard is one of the most vital things if you want to have a zero that won't change by the way the rifle is handled.
 
greentips said:
If you put pressure on the barrel of c7, especially by grabbing the farthest end of the hand guard, you can put as much as 8 to 10 MOA shift in the POI.

That is the reason all the competition shooters don't touch the barrel. Free floating hand guard is one of the most vital things if you want to have a zero that won't change by the way the rifle is handled.
Click to expand...


Really, is that just for the "c7" or any AR/rifle? :rolleyes: C7 is a Canadian mil designation, its not a specific rifle. I wish people would stop using those stupid designators for the AR family.

TDC
 
TDC said:
Really, is that just for the "c7" or any AR/rifle? :rolleyes: C7 is a Canadian mil designation, its not a specific rifle. I wish people would stop using those stupid designators for the AR family.

TDC
Click to expand...

Maybe because it was with a C7 that he saw this happen, not just any other AR. Just like whenever I refer to the AR I used in the CF, I call it my C7, because that's what it was. All C7's are AR's, but not all AR's are C7's.
 
TDC said:
Colt Canada guns are only built and assembled in Canada, the company is American. Geographic location doesn't mean a hill of beans IMO. Same story for Tim Hortons which is American owned now. However, of the three you list, their is really no contest, as Dlask is half a$$ed, AT is over priced and uses low end parts.

TDC
Click to expand...

The company is now owned by Colt USA, true, but the Colt Canada guns are still Canadian built to the Diemaco standards of old. Not much has changed in that respect. "American" in name only.
 
ChrisAlston said:
Maybe because it was with a C7 that he saw this happen, not just any other AR. Just like whenever I refer to the AR I used in the CF, I call it my C7, because that's what it was. All C7's are AR's, but not all AR's are C7's.
Click to expand...

C7 is not a specific make/model. Its still an AR, in fact no one owns a C7 as they are select fire and reportedly only offered under contract to the CF. The POI shift is not exclusive to the "C7" or an AR in general, its science, applied adverse pressure to the barrel can and does cause POI shift.

ChrisAlston said:
The company is now owned by Colt USA, true, but the Colt Canada guns are still Canadian built to the Diemaco standards of old. Not much has changed in that respect. "American" in name only.
Click to expand...

Still American, its not a Canadian company and the special features are still unproven. However, of the listed makers, its still my choice for an AR.

TDC
 
TDC said:
C7 is not a specific make/model. Its still an AR, in fact no one owns a C7 as they are select fire and reportedly only offered under contract to the CF. The POI shift is not exclusive to the "C7" or an AR in general, its science, applied adverse pressure to the barrel can and does cause POI shift.



Still American, its not a Canadian company and the special features are still unproven. However, of the listed makers, its still my choice for an AR.

TDC
Click to expand...

Ok, not sure what you're getting at. The C7 is a specific model of the AR, specifically a select fire AR built to the Canadian Forces TDP. Yes it's an AR, but it's specifically a C7. My issued C7 was specifically a C7A1.
 
Variable size stocks
Front sight post not F size
Weaver rail vs 1913
Norgon
CHF a bbl
Safe, semi, auto vs burst
Non m4 feed ramps

There is more. Colt Canada can chime in. We are talking the mil C7. Not civilian

Boltgun
 
TDC said:
Do tell, what makes it any different than an m16a3??

TDC
Click to expand...

Hammer forged barrel with different chrome lining, different front sight post, weaver rail, variable sized fixed stocks, Canadian made. A C7A2 differs further by adding an ambi safety, ambi mag catch, ambi charging handle, C8 style 4 position stock and buffer tube with H2 buffer, and green furniture. Otherwise very similar to the M16A3, but not an M16A3.
Curious why you are even referring to an M16A3 and not just an AR? I thought there were no specific models of AR's lol.
 
ChrisAlston said:
Hammer forged barrel with different chrome lining, different front sight post, weaver rail, variable sized fixed stocks, Canadian made. A C7A2 differs further by adding an ambi safety, ambi mag catch, ambi charging handle, C8 style 4 position stock and buffer tube with H2 buffer, and green furniture. Otherwise very similar to the M16A3, but not an M16A3.
Curious why you are even referring to an M16A3 and not just an AR? I thought there were no specific models of AR's lol.
Click to expand...

So there are no visual or performance related differences, got it. Just unproven snake oil claims of "special processes" and "improvements". Weaver rail is a negative not a positive. I reference the A3 because it is the same thing as a "c7". Its a 20" barrel select fire AR rifle. If it weren't for the roll marks you wouldn't know the difference.

Tdc
 
TDC said:
So there are no visual or performance related differences, got it. Just unproven snake oil claims of "special processes" and "improvements". Weaver rail is a negative not a positive. I reference the A3 because it is the same thing as a "c7". Its a 20" barrel select fire AR rifle. If it weren't for the roll marks you wouldn't know the difference.

Tdc
Click to expand...

Actually a hammer forged barrel has proven itself to outperform a button barrel in durability and round count, a know-it-all such as yourself surely knows this. Why you are so hostile towards the improvements made to the rifle are beyond me, clearly the SAS likes the improvements, specifically to the C8SFW (there we go naming specific AR's again) but what do they know right? I guess our combat experience in Afghanistan with the C7 and C8 don't count for anything either. Yup still unproven. Must be junk..
We aren't talking about performance or positives and negatives anyways, just differences. Fact is a C7 is a C7, it's not an M16A3, or an M16A4, or any other AR. It's a C7, it has differences, specified by the CF, deal with it. A member of the AR family of rifles such as the myriad of other AR pattern rifles. You're weird problem with people calling them C7's I just don't get. It's fine to call an M16A3 by its proper name, but not a C7. Yeah ok..whatever you say.
 
The IUR rifles do not exhibit the POI shift, and they are AR15s and C7s at the same time.

I have been playing with float tubes and at the end of the day the monolithic IUR is miles ahead.
 
Like I said, for a normal user the only noticeable feature is the thinner front sight post on the C7. Yeah, they are both safe-semi-full auto. M16A4 is the burst version.
 
ChrisAlston said:
Actually a hammer forged barrel has proven itself to outperform a button barrel in durability and round count, a know-it-all such as yourself surely knows this. Why you are so hostile towards the improvements made to the rifle are beyond me, clearly the SAS likes the improvements, specifically to the C8SFW (there we go naming specific AR's again) but what do they know right? I guess our combat experience in Afghanistan with the C7 and C8 don't count for anything either. Yup still unproven. Must be junk..
We aren't talking about performance or positives and negatives anyways, just differences. Fact is a C7 is a C7, it's not an M16A3, or an M16A4, or any other AR. It's a C7, it has differences, specified by the CF, deal with it. A member of the AR family of rifles such as the myriad of other AR pattern rifles. You're weird problem with people calling them C7's I just don't get. It's fine to call an M16A3 by its proper name, but not a C7. Yeah ok..whatever you say.
Click to expand...

I well aware of the benefits of CHF barrels, its what I own and prefer. However, its primary benefit is longevity, not "accuracy". A CHF barrel that meets MILSPEC is the same as a broached barrel that meets MILSPEC. To spec is to spec.

I'm still waiting for the list of differences between a "C7" and a standard MILSPEC AR like the M16A3? Both are 20" barreled select fire rifles of the AR family of weapons, no??? No one seems to know just what these "specs" are that the CC rifles are being measured against. It was mentioned in another thread that there are "about 150 changes" but not one has been listed. Some unfounded crap about a modified bore that "Squeezes" the bullet?!? WTF is that? I'm quite confident that two rifles side by side, one being a CC one being a copy from a reputable brand made to spec(DD, COLT, BCM, LMT) would print similar groups and be indistinguishable as far as performance goes. The only visible difference is the skinny front sight post, a $24 fix(brownells) for a 7 pack of various slimline front posts. None of which are useful during lowlight....Just saying. Can anyone list these differences that a CC rifle has that another AR does not??

My issue with the "C7/C8" label is that no one who owns a CC rifle owns a C7 or C8. They own a SIMILAR(not exact) copy of the two aforementioned contract "spec'd" rifles; or so we are told as no one seems to know the specs nor can they prove the CC rifles are of the same pedigree. The wannabe fanboy sh*t about "look at my C7" is pathetic. YOU DON'T OWN A C7! You own an AR built by COLT USA, in Canada.

My statement still stands. Of the brands listed by the OP, the CC is the better choice. I don't doubt they make a decent rifle, I do doubt that its a super duper uber high end masterpiece that commands ones worship..

TDC
 
Sigh, taper bores are only able to be produced by hammer forging. Some say they have accuracy/velocity/durability advantages (kind of like button rifled or cut rifled guys claim advantages), and according to a number of engineers the taper makes it easier to remove the mandrel from the barrel following forging. From .22-155mm forged barrels have a taper which is part of the reason artillery barrels are subjected to autofrettage (steel shells don't squeeze down very well and the taper needs to be removed). Tapered bores are a real thing, and a common thing in small arms.

Having built many parts for the military over the years I know that often every substitution of material, process or machinery used in production or testing requires engineering approval (sometimes pointless) and often results in a new NSN being issued. Knowing that lock washers or gaskets can have different NSNs based on what machine cut (or punched) them I have no doubt that there are differences in materials, dimensions, tolerances and processes.

I have no illusions that my SA20 is a C7A2, but I know it is as close as I can get or want to get to a C7A2.
 
Last edited:
I think OP you are scratching your head right now. As usual, another CGN thread degrades. So my 2 cents. You can buy any of the three mentioned and probably not know the difference when you look at your targets. You are not going into battle or entering 1000yd competitions are you ? That might change things. I have fired dozens of Colt AR's over the last 25 years and have not been blown away by anything they have to offer. But, they will last a very long time, put up with a lot of abuse, and stay combat accurate. I have owned two Dlask AR's and can say the exact same thing, however, I was able to order the exact barrel length and profile that I wanted from Dlask. They go bang every time, they are combat accurate and better, and will suit your purposes just fine. The choice is yours as I don't think you will be disappointed with any of them. That doesn't mean I would give up my KAC or not lust after a Noveske or other Gucci brand name. I also really like my Dlask. Never seen an ATR so I can't comment from personal experience. Do you prefer a Mustang or Camaro ?
 
Gunnerlove said:
Sigh, taper bores are only able to be produced by hammer forging. Some say they have accuracy/velocity/durability advantages (kind of like button rifled or cut rifled guys claim advantages), and according to a number of engineers the taper makes it easier to remove the mandrel from the barrel following forging. From .22-155mm forged barrels have a taper which is part of the reason artillery barrels are subjected to autofrettage (steel shells don't squeeze down very well and the taper needs to be removed). Tapered bores are a real thing, and a common thing in small arms.

Having built many parts for the military over the years I know that often every substitution of material, process or machinery used in production or testing requires engineering approval (sometimes pointless) and often results in a new NSN being issued. Knowing that lock washers or gaskets can have different NSNs based on what machine cut (or punched) them I have no doubt that there are differences in materials, dimensions, tolerances and processes.

I have no illusions that my SA20 is a C7A2, but I know it is as close as I can get or want to get to a C7A2.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the info, taper bores I have heard of but to be honest hadn't investigated. As you say some claim it to be an advantage, is there any proof of that? Any idea what the other "improvements" are?

TDC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom