Differences between M-16 and C7 ?

Okay people, Im in the Canadian Military, the main difference between the C& and the M16 are as follows
1. The C& has vented hand guards with an aluminum cooling rack in side, (hence ours cool better) meaning more rounds through with less Jams
All of the AR's ive seen have aluminum heat shields, and what the hell does the aluminum have to do jams???
2. The Elcan site/scope is used it is almost indestructable (sp) and is amazing in low light conditions
Elcan is ok, but get over your kit love. One drawback is that other optics can be used in low low light to get a look at something. The elcan is useless in really low light because the illumnator is too bright, it washes out any image. The illuminator should have an adjustable intensity
3. The flash supressor on the front of our C7's are designed more to eliminate the flash even in low light conditions, the M16 is almost always seen once the light is out
same FS, as far as i can see
4. The Butt of the rifle is fitted with a slot to allow for a cleaning kit
??? exactly how many AR's have you handled? They all have this, just like most MBR's
These are the basics differences Im sure there are a few more but I dont know them. The ones that I have listed are the ones that make the C7 OURS
 
Ltbull01 said:
Kevin B - I'd rather have a soldier who listened to fire control orders, watched his arcs, covered his fire team partner and section mates and shot at an an identifiable enemy target. We are in the age where errant fire as collateral damage can have strategic consequences...hence the concept of the 'precision guided strategic munition' or the 5.56mm NATO: one round, one insurgent vs many rounds, kill/maime lots of locals around and accure the wrath of those locals whom surely will not help your cause now. I quote this from an American Stryker Bde Colonel who just returned from Iraq.
Click to expand...

Curious as to what your background is regarding this topic Ltbull01. I know KevinB and mine backgrounds, and opinions are pretty much based on hands on operational experience. Care to step out of the shadows and validate your position?
 
Last edited:
Leeworthy23 said:
Okay people, Im in the Canadian Military, the main difference between the C& and the M16 are as follows
1. The C& has vented hand guards with an aluminum cooling rack in side, (hence ours cool better) meaning more rounds through with less Jams
2. The Elcan site/scope is used it is almost indestructable (sp) and is amazing in low light conditions
3. The flash supressor on the front of our C7's are designed more to eliminate the flash even in low light conditions, the M16 is almost always seen once the light is out
4. The Butt of the rifle is fitted with a slot to allow for a cleaning kit

These are the basics differences Im sure there are a few more but I dont know them. The ones that I have listed are the ones that make the C7 OURS!
Click to expand...

Well, you obviously are not too versed in the weapons platform then...I have worked with M16A1, M16A2, M4 and civvie AR-15s, CAR-15s. Seems every variation after the original M16 all had these improvements. I have never worked with the Elcan but seems the jury is out on that big hunk of glass, personally, I would rather have iron sights than just Elcan, or flattop, with ACOG and back up irons...
 
echo4lima said:
Here, Here agree 100%...I laughed when I read so true, there is this almost unreal feeling of "How dare he do that?, F**k this is crazy"..LOL
Click to expand...

Never felt like that. Of course I have never been shot at by people in a random situation, like war. I've always more or less been expecting it. No confusion like that, just an "oh ####!!!!" reaction. Feel like you've been stabbed in the chest with a knife full of adrenalin (seriously, there is a twing of pain) and had a bucket of cold water dumped over your head at the same time. There's a fraction of a moment of "What the #### do I do" and then you move. And that's it.
 
Leeworthy23 said:
Okay people, Im in the Canadian Military, the main difference between the C& and the M16 are as follows
1. The C& has vented hand guards with an aluminum cooling rack in side, (hence ours cool better) meaning more rounds through with less Jams
2. The Elcan site/scope is used it is almost indestructable (sp) and is amazing in low light conditions
3. The flash supressor on the front of our C7's are designed more to eliminate the flash even in low light conditions, the M16 is almost always seen once the light is out
4. The Butt of the rifle is fitted with a slot to allow for a cleaning kit

These are the basics differences Im sure there are a few more but I dont know them. The ones that I have listed are the ones that make the C7 OURS!
Click to expand...

YOUR AN IDIOT - fact
1) Your an idiot - its an aluminum heat shield
2) Your and idiot - C79 is CRAP
3) Your an idiot - no different from the A2's
4) You an idiot - no different from the A1 series other than the door latch is slightly larger.

Some might feel this is a personal attack - I disagree I feel its simple stating a fact like the sky is blue - But ALL of his/its assertions are incorrect and ALL are common on the M16 series (post A1) with the exception of a RTFO comment on the C79 ELCAN.
 
I'd like to get rid of all the ambidextrous #### that they put on the C7A2. let the wpns tech's put it on for lefties only. Other than that I agree with KevinB, a 16" mid length would meet our requirements nicely.
 
Colin said:
So what changes to the C7 would the infantry like to see?
Any preferance for the 6.8 or 6.5?
Click to expand...

The C7 mid-life upgrade has been planned since March of last year. The purpose of the exercise was to extend the life of the C7 for another 12-15 years until an alternative can be selected. The timeline is intended to allow the US and UK to go through their respective selection processes (Estimated to commence in Jun-Jul 2010) with Canada following suit in 2015/2018.
Although some (6,000) rifles have been completed, the program has been suspended until some problems are worked-out.

The mid-life upgrade consists of mostly cosmetic changes;
1. Firstly, all the black plastic furniture is being replaced with green, fiber re-enforced handguards, grip & stock. (a number will be fitted with the telescoping stock) The handguards have side-mounted picatinni rails for the addition of tactical lighting, etc.
2. Secondly, an ambidexturous mag release is being retrofitted as well as the tactical (long-latch) cocking handle.
3. Third, the next generation (Gen 2, Ver a) of Elcan is being fitted. This version has a green rubber covering and flip-up lens covers. My understanding is that Ver 3 will do away with the Tritium, and go towards a non-radioactive self-illuminating reticle.
Barrels are being replaced as required, but generally most of the internal and/or major components are not being replaced at all.

One decision that was made was the addition of the "Accu-wedge" to the majority of C7's. For those of you who have had the opportunity to use them on a regular basis, you know that some C7 rifles are rediculously loose between upper & lower receivers. Poor cleaning/assembly practices & general mis-treatment of the weapon are mostly to blame.

The C7 is not the FN. The FNC1 could be used to pound-in concertina wire stakes, and then still shoot a 1.5" group 2 minutes later. The C7's aluminum receiver group is easily distorted & worn over time, and we are discovering significant numbers that are simply too worn to function accurately, or even safely. I hardly see the accu-wedge doing much good for the majority of C7's in service today. Damned I miss the FNC1/C2.

From a tech's perspective, I'd like to see us move towards something a little more robust, that can be "in-theatre" modified to suit multiple roles as required. IMHO you will not find better designed weapons systems than what comes out of Germany. Watch for the next generation of hardware coming out of there in the next few years. It's going to be impressive.
 
I dont want to derail this thread with what a piece of #### the C7A2 and what abstract idiociy went into its design.


DaveMachine -- the 6.8 round was specifically designed to be used in 12-16 barrel systems - and its velocity via powder blending is set up to perform best between those ranges. (kinda like the 5.56mm in M855/C77 ball is ideal between 16-18")

The 6.5 was designed for longer barrles as such its performance in less than or equal to 16" barrels is much poorer than 6.8. As well the 6.8 rounds have a greater terminal performance than the 6.5 - the tested 6.5 round have a neck logner than M855 (aprox 15cm) nearing 20cm in otherwords it has passed thru some of the smaller statured opponents with NO yaw or fragmentation.
 
Last edited:
greentips said:
If it is anything like G36 or XM8, no thanks. 416, maybe, but colt seems to be waking up finally in the department as well, and we know GD has political influence. But who knows, maybe we will keep the M16 for a few more years and get ATK caseless or telescopic munition technogly.
Click to expand...
Well, I have family that work at Colt Canada......so I can tell you exactly what they're developing today to compete in the evaluation trials.
Suffice it to say, the direct gas system is going to be replaced, (thank God..) as are some of the other major design features of the current M16/C7 series.
And wouldn't it surprise you to know that they have been requested to develop trial weapons in both 5.56mm and 7.62mm? (Requested by the US eval committee) It seems that someone has finally decided to look at the performance issues associated to the 5.56mm.
General Dynamics Land Systems (the soon-to-be owners of Colt US & Colt Canada) are starting to ask the right questions of the right people. Wow, that only took...what, 25 years?
 
Keep in mind HK has a suit pending for Colt's M5 gas piston that #### Swan (ARMS Inc.) is rumour to have allowed Colt to peruse the Hk416 (well M4C prior to the rename) while he had it designing a SIR to fit given its higher upper receiver...

Now IF GD L manages to finish its attempted buy of HK -- we will see...

I still stand by my comments that the only major advantage to the piston is for short suppressed weapons - having used the Diemaco C8SFW and Colt M4A1 in theatre I have and will continue to stake my life on them.
 
KevinB said:
I still stand by my comments that the only major advantage to the piston is for short suppressed weapons
Click to expand...
Well, I will (respectfully) disagree on this quoted comment only.
THE major advantage of either a short or long stroke gas piston, as opposed to the direct gas impingement system, is fouling. To have a gas system direct carbon & residual fouling directly into the bolt and bolt carrier system is not the best design by any means. Most manufacturers have realized this as a major shortcoming, and have taken action to re-design it, (as per your other comments on law suites, etc).
High rate of fire weapons that are reliable, employ either a short stoke actuator, or piston/Op rod configuration for this very reason.
 
Colin said:
So what changes to the C7 would the infantry like to see?

Any preferance for the 6.8 or 6.5?
Click to expand...

Depends what the 6.8 and 6.5 are based on. The ballistics don't look too impressive on what I've seen so far - flat trajectory. The 'standard' 5.56 NATO is in my books to be preferred over the variants above. I'd have a good look at a 6.5'-08' cartidge (read 260 Rem) but then we lose the advantage of light ammo and ammo carriage. If we are going to go there, might as well go the 7.62! I'm not a fan of a cartidge based on a an AK-PPC design or a 223 PPC design in 6.5/6.8. Lose a lot in ballistics. In specialist circumstances, it may have a role - close quarter cbt. For overall infantry use, I'd had to agree with others that the 5.56 does the job,as long as the shooter does the job... Most infantry use would see out to 300 M. Beyond that, a marksman rifle - concept currently under development - would close the gap.

The platform should accommodate the circumstances that soldiers will encounter. Collapsing the stock for FIBUA, fitting to body armour, rails for attaching laser designation devices, specialty scopes, etc. C7A2 has that and it is extremely important to have that capability. The 'new' C7A2 gives that platform flexibility. I do miss the robustness of the FN and, to qualify, I have yet to use the new model rifle. My 'colleagues' are okay with it though.
 
Weapontech said:
Well, I will (respectfully) disagree on this quoted comment only.
THE major advantage of either a short or long stroke gas piston, as opposed to the direct gas impingement system, is fouling. To have a gas system direct carbon & residual fouling directly into the bolt and bolt carrier system is not the best design by any means. Most manufacturers have realized this as a major shortcoming, and have taken action to re-design it, (as per your other comments on law suites, etc).
High rate of fire weapons that are reliable, employ either a short stoke actuator, or piston/Op rod configuration for this very reason.
Click to expand...

Yes but how much fouling -- in short barrels ie the Mk18 ECQBR and C8CQB with a suppressor the fouling rate is HUGE compared to logner barrels unsuppressed. I have fired a LOT of rounds out of the C8SFW and M4A1 without any fouling issues that impeed the action.

Do we really need to be able to fire 20k rounds before a cleaning?

I have fired 300rds out of a suppressed shorty - and noticed that the action was getting quite sluggish -- for this role the Hk416 10.5" is ideal -- and I agree that if one goes that way it is easier to transition a complete military to piston. But since I have done 5k of ammo thru a C7 in one day with no cleaning other than squirting in some CLP (and damn it look ugly later) -I challenage any rational that even with a LI 10 mag basicload (280rds if you load 28rds /mag) to ever get to that sort of abuse in one sitting.

I question whether the piston adoption is a worthwhile allocation of the militaries money for conventional soldiers that will not have suppressors on CQB's -- rather than spending it on extra ammuntion for training.


LTBull -- USSOC ballistic test data of the 6.8/6.5/5.56mm are out there for qualified folk to peruse.
The 6.8 is easily a better performer terminally in intermediate barrier penetration that the other rounds -- however bolt life, MRBF and weight of ammunion are questions I want answered before I hitch my wagon.
 
Hey, KevinB since we seem to be on this topic and you are the man on the ground anyway, do you see any reason for the 6.8 without a weapons system re-design?

I mean, is there any point to switching calibers if you are not going to make a better gun, so to speak?
 
SPI - since I have not seen any data for 6.8 from M249/C9/Minimi - I dont see it anything more a flash in the pan. USSOCOM the entity that originate the request has now dropped it from requirement from SCAR-L and the Joint Modular Weapons request.

Mk262 77gr ammo solves a lot of the problems with longer range accuracy and a better terminal performer that M855/C77/SS109 -- IMHO a switch in bullets would be better than a calibre switch.

6.8 will still have better intervening media penetration -- but the addition of a 7.62mm semi auto Marksman Rifle System at section/squad (or even Platoon) level provides a added bonus over 6.8 in that respect and does not require a major makeover (provided SR-15/AR10 adoption) and the C6/M240 at Platoon level deals with harder targets as do the M203's at section/squad level
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom