Canadian Army Rilfes

I always wondered why a metric country like Canada would use the inch version of the FAL?

Nyles that is a fantastic link. I found the bayonet info very helpful and the handgun section fascinating. The Canadian forces had a lot of very nice mostly US handguns over the years. The sten gun page also had the best poem I have ever read in my life.

I don't think SMG's and machine guns like the Bren really count as issue rifles
for the purpose of this list. According to Canadian soldiers .com there were only the 3 subguns. The Thompson ,the Sten and the Sterling(C1 I believe).
I would be surprised if the special forces guys were not using the MP5 now as well.

I guess if you wanted to get pedantic you could also list the sniper rifles like the Parker Hale and the new one. Possibly even some Barret .50's.
 
We weren't metric in the fifties...I remember the speed limits changing over in 1977. Stupid speed limit in Ontario went from 70 mph to 100kph (62.4 mph :mad:)
Like so much else, that was Trudeau's baby, and it remains a joke to today.
 
cantom said:
I wonder why Canada went with a semi auto main battle rifle when many other countries (particularly our adversaries) already had full auto assault rifles and burp guns? A bit of a disadvantage or no?
I'm aware there was pressure from the Americans to adopt the Nato standard calibre which didn't lend itself to effective full auto fire in a hand held weapon.
Click to expand...

maybe this was in line with not having camouflage combat uniforms...looks too agressive or something like that...
 
Unsub said:
I don't think SMG's and machine guns like the Bren really count as issue rifles
for the purpose of this list. According to Canadian soldiers .com there were only the 3 subguns. The Thompson ,the Sten and the Sterling(C1 I believe).
I would be surprised if the special forces guys were not using the MP5 now as well.

I guess if you wanted to get pedantic you could also list the sniper rifles like the Parker Hale and the new one. Possibly even some Barret .50's.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the JTF guys use them, as well as naval boarding parties. Regular army does not. Far as sniper rifles, right now we have the C3A1 (Parker Hale M82), C14 (Prairie Gun Works Timberwolf) and C15 (MacMillan Tac-50 - the "Big Mac"). We've never used the Barret.
 
there were automatic versions of the C1A1... and no, I am not talking about the C2...
Looked almost exactly the same as a regular C1, but had the extra position on the selector. sight might have been different as well, but I don't recall for certain...
anyway, full auto was just a matchstick away (but who wanted to carry all the extra ammo)
 
shazam* said:
there were automatic versions of the C1A1... and no, I am not talking about the C2...
Looked almost exactly the same as a regular C1, but had the extra position on the selector. sight might have been different as well, but I don't recall for certain...
Click to expand...

yes, thats a FN C1-D , it has a letter "A" on the right side.

the rear sight is the same.
 
cantom said:
I wonder why Canada went with a semi auto main battle rifle when many other countries (particularly our adversaries) already had full auto assault rifles and burp guns? A bit of a disadvantage or no?
.
Click to expand...

Methinks to be in line with other British Commonwealth armies. They all adopted the semi FNs.
 
curtton said:
the FN C1 was officially adopted in 1956 but did experiment with the FN EX models for 2 years prior .
Click to expand...

The FN-FAL was adopted in Ex1 and Ex2 form in July 1953, they arrived in early 1954.

The experimenting started in the late 1940s.

The first production Ex1 would have been about the @50th FN-FAL manufactured, and was the first ever production FN-FAL.

The first production FN-C1 was manufactured in 1956.

It was a lightly modified Ex1 (production FAL) with some minor "improvements" to the upper (folding charging handle, better mag latch, vastly superior gas block) and a substantially different (improved?) lower.

The American T48 manufactured by H&R was manufactured to CAL produced drawings~ it could be argued that they were the first "Canadian" production FNs
 
I thought the guy who made the longest recorded sniper kill was using a Barret I always get it and the Big Mac (great name) mixed up.

I don't think a full auto FAL would have been all that much better except in very specific circumstances. I would have been in diapers then but if I remember my history the naval boarding parties had a FA FAL and later some regular forces had them for specific instances. They must have been hard to control with those big 7.62's

I read an article about the US weapons used in Iraq and they have a SAW modified with a short 14 inch barrel that they love for house clearing or anytime you want a bullet hose. They wear out fast though.
Does Canada have anything remotely like that?

It seems that canada has usually fielded pretty high quality rifles over the years. No4 ,FN FAL, C7 etc. The list of pistols is very interesting as well.
All of them until the Hi Power were very well made US pistols except for one nice Webley. The Hi Powers are getting old but the US soldiers are stuck with decent berretas with terrible mags.
 
I dunno if I'd call the C7 (A1 at least, the C7 was way before my time and it'll be awhile before we see the A2 in the reserves) a quality rifle - it is very easy to shoot accurately with minimal training (espescially with the Elcan), but by the same token the Elcan mount SUCKS and it gets so very, very dirty.
 
Lots of folks seem to love to hate the C7 :)

I actually think it's a pretty good rifle. Yes, the Elcans had (and have) issues...but that's not the rifle. I can't speak to the A2, my experience was with the C7 and C7A1. Seven pounds unloaded is a good weight for a service rifle - and as you pointed out, it's easy to shoot well. The ergonomics are excellent.

As far as getting dirty goes, take a look at the DI vs. Piston thread over in Black Rifles. If you lube properly, a little bit of carbon (or a metric buttload for that matter) is not the end of the world. Let's try not to get into a dust test/sandbox failure bun fight here.
 
I tend to agree on alot of those points - not being infantry I don't get get to shoot much, but I'm fairly anal about maintaining them when I do and I've only had a C7 jam on me once, and it was utterly full of Shilo sand. I'm not saying the C7 is a bad rifle, I just don't think it's gonna be remembered the same way as the Enfield or C1.
 
From what I have heard(all this is second hand not being in the military) the C7 is a better rifle than the M16. I think you are right that it is not going to ever be up there with the C1 or the Enfield but it seems better than the new Enfield the Brits have or any of the AK based rifles.
 
Unsub said:
I read an article about the US weapons used in Iraq and they have a SAW modified with a short 14 inch barrel that they love for house clearing or anytime you want a bullet hose. They wear out fast though.
Does Canada have anything remotely like that?
Click to expand...

Yes, the C9A2. It comes with one short and one standard length barrel, as well as a M4 style butt stock. I've handled one but I've never shot one, so I can't comment fairly. Though I can say I have no idea why they retained the Elcan scope on the LMG... it has almost no business whatsoever being there. At least they have a decent set of back-up irons.

The C7A2 is an interim piece of junk, IMO. The army should have saved the money until it was willing to wait for a real upgrade. With a 4 position M4 stock and a 20 inch barrel, the rifle is front heavy before you even put any accessories on the tri-mount, which is conveniently located as far forward as possible. Again, they kept the Elcan. I never had any real issues with it, but time will tell if they hold up or not. The ambidextrous cocking lever gets caught on kit, and the ambidextrous mag release has a nasty habit of pressing up against the tac vest and releasing a mag, so you have to be careful. Why on Earth they spent the money to convert every rifle to make it ambidextrous is again, beyond me. 1 in 9 people is left handed, you think they would just buy enough lefty conversion kits and issue them as desired... guess not.

In regards to C7 reliability over the M-16 series; I remember reading an article about why the British commandos, or SAS, or some such unit chose the C7 over the M-16 family because it was better built, and thus more reliable. So take that for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom