Every once in awhile I'll hear about how our C7 has a number of modifications compared to the "basic" M-16 (I have the number 42 stuck in my head, but i'm probably wrong about that), mostly to improve reliability in cold weather, but I have yet to see a complete list of them. Anyone care to enlighten me ?
Differences between M-16 and C7 ?
- Thread starter RobSmith
- Start date
The whole purpose behind the Thermold mag was for rapid resupply. They were not intended to be used as an issued item. What I have been told is that the Thermold mags were suppose to be loaded with ammo on the resupply drop. As you fired your rifle and emptied the mag, you were suppose to take it out of the weapon and step on it. The purpose of stepping on it was to destroy it so the ememy forces could not use it. So I guess what I'm getting at is they are disposable magazines.
Weapontech
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- On my way to Hell in a handbasket
Pietro Beretta said:
Here are some specifics;
The development of the C7 paralleled that of the M16A2 by Colt. A Canadian Forces Liaison Officer worked with the Marines in the M16A1 Product Improvement Program and relayed information to Canada's Rifle Replacement Program Office. The C7 for all intents and purposes is much like earlier M16A1E1s, rather than final product M16A2s. The earliest C7s were actually manufactured by Colt for Canadian Forces as the Colt Model 715. Like earlier M16s, it can be fired in either single shot or automatic mode, instead of the burst function selected for the M16A2. The C7 also features the structural strengthening, improved handguards, and longer stock developed for the M16A2. Diemaco changed the trapdoor in the buttstock to make it easier to access and a half-inch spacer is available to adjust stock length to user preference. The most easily noticeable external difference between American M16A2s and Diemaco C7s is the retention of the A1 style rear sights. Not easily apparent is Diemaco's use of hammer-forged barrels. The Canadians originally desired to use a heavy barrel profile instead of the M16A2 profile, but Colt denied permission. Also, Diemaco has developed a different mounting system from Colt for the M203 grenade launcher for the C7 rifle family.
Danish soldier shooting with a C8A2 Carbine, in Iraq. It is known as the M/96 in Denmark.The C7A1 (Diemaco C7FT) replaces the iron sight/carrying handle used on the C7 with a modified Weaver rail for mounting optics. Canadian development of rails preceded American standardization of MIL-STD-1913, aka Picatinny rail, so "Canadian Rail" or "Diemaco Rail" slightly differs. There are 14 slots instead of 13 and each slot is narrower. The height of the rail is also lower, allowing usage of normal front sights. MIL-STD-1913 requires a different front sight assembly. During development, the original rails were vacuum-bonded to the top of a bare receiver though for production the rail and receiver were made out of a single forging. The mount can use traditional iron sights or the Elcan C79 3.4x power optical sight, both of which can be adjusted for individual eye relief. The optical sight was designed for the C9 light machine gun and includes horizontal and vertical mil-bars used for range determination and deflection, and a tritium glow-in-the-dark aiming parapet rather than the tradition crosshairs. The 3.4x is powerful enough to properly see targets at the maximum accurate range of 400 m, though like most magnified optical sights it is prone to criticism for creating tunnel vision in close quarters situations. While the wide aperture helps to speed target acquisition, Canadian soldiers generally eschew the C79 sight in favour of nonmagnified optical sights or backup iron sights when engaged or training in close quarters. The front sight was changed to a round post 0.050 inches in diameter, from the square post.
Colt and Diemaco also paired up to develop a squad automatic weapon variant of the series. The Diemaco Light Support Weapon (LSW) features a heavy barrel suitable for sustained fire. The LSW can only be fired on fully-automatic. The LSW has a boxy square handguard with a carrying handle and a vertical foregrip that can be used as a monopod. The LSW was made with no bayonet lug until recently because of the original bipod. Because of a new bipod that attaches to the same barrel yoke as the carrying handle and front grip, current LSWs are made with a bayonet lug. Unlike many M16 variants, it fires from an open bolt, obviating the need for a forward assist. While the Canadian government opted to select the C9 (FN Minimi), the weapon has adopted by the Netherlands. Diemaco also makes closed-bolt versions with forward assists for the Danish Army and the Royal Dutch Marines. The Diemaco LSW was originally a license produced variant of the Colt 750, but both Colt and Diemaco have upgraded their respective weapons to include features like a detachable carry handle and other features seperately. The Colt weapon likely has a new 900 series model number.
With Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, Diemaco and the Canadian Army have been working on developing improvements to the C7A1 to better suit the operational situations at hand. The result, the C7A2, has a telescoping stock unit similar to that of the C8 carbine and a 3-rail TRI-AD I mount on the front sight triangle. The selector lever, magazine release, and charging handle latch are ambidextrous. Also, the C7A2 is issued with green color furniture as standard. While rifle-length C7A2s are prevalent, some have been seen with 16" barrels, fitting somewhere in between the rifle C7A2s and C8 carbines. These weapons are often seen with a similar plethora of accessories as their American counterparts given the overall commonalities of the system and the rail mounts.
I got the impression that when these C7 was brought in and the "improvements of the American m16" were listed, they were talking about improvements made over the original Vietnam era M16, not the M16A2 that the US was using at the time. The rear sight was not as good as the M16A2, nor did it have the 3-round burst, which IMHO is a very important improvement for the average user.
True story:
Me: "How did you like the live fire ambush ex last night? Were you able to see anything you were shooting at?"
Her: "um, I don't know. I put it on the thing where it shoots by itself and it went until it stopped."
...then they picked her to send and represent us in Bosnia (infantry).
True story:Me: "How did you like the live fire ambush ex last night? Were you able to see anything you were shooting at?"
Her: "um, I don't know. I put it on the thing where it shoots by itself and it went until it stopped."
...then they picked her to send and represent us in Bosnia (infantry).
Weapontech
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- On my way to Hell in a handbasket
Actually, No.Quiet said:
C7 development happened in parallel with M16A1 improvements in the US. The M16 3-round burst system is garbage, as anyone who has used one , (or services one..) will attest. I for one, prefer fire-control-descipline over fire-limit mechanisms. They are unreliable and behave strangely if you don't use the trigger the way it wants.
The other rifle that Colt Canada is still manufacturing is the C10. A .22 cal training version of the C7. It uses 83% of standard C7 rifle parts, and has a barrel with a 1-in-16 twist. I've only ever seen a couple of them, and I still don't know who's using them.
Is there such a thing as an illustrated parts list/exploded diagram of the M16, M16A1, M16A2, C7, C8, LSW, C10 etc... publicly available ? Seems to me it would make it <so> much easier to see visually how the design's innards evolved over the years ...
RobSmith said:
The links below have free owner's manual downloads,exploded parts views,blue prints & more:
http://www.voodoo.cz/manuals
http://www.bowtools.com/Articles/Gun_Manuals/Firearms Technical and Training Manuals.htm
http://www.bowtools.com/subjects.asp
http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals (Username:manuals & Password:chipin)
http://www.reloadbench.com/fire_manuals.html
http://stevespages.com/page7.htm
http://stevespages.com/page7b.htm
http://www.again.net/~steve/page7b.htm
https://www.doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil/aspweb/training.asp
http://quarterbore.com/library/pdfindex.html
http://www.browning.com/products/manuals/index.asp
http://www.gunmanuals.ch
http://www.gunmanuals.ch/handbuecher/handfeuerwaffen/gewehre/index.html
http://www.okiegunsmithshop.com/lvl25.html
http://www.thedisease.net/lib-schematics.html
http://www.e-gunparts.com/onlineschematics.asp
http://www.urban-armory.com/blueprints.htm
http://www.gunsworld.com/exploded_us.htm
http://mem.tcon.net/users/5010/5491/armscortypes.jpg
http://mem.tcon.net/users/5010/5491/ap74types.jpg
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/coffee/armaint.htm
http://www.ar15.com/content
http://www.biggerhammer.net/ar15
http://www.bowtools.com/Articles/blue prints/cad.htm
http://www.diemaco.com/techpubs.htm
http://www.armalite.com/library/manuals.htm
http://www.weapondepot.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8
http://www.gunmanuals.ch/source05/tm9101022110.pdf (M203 grenade launcher)
http://www.czhermex.cz/czh2003/CZH2003S.zip
http://www3.telus.net/gunnery/Czech/CZ858manual.pdf
http://www3.telus.net/public/pburritt/Czech/CZ858manual.pdf
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000497#000000
http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/SE-H-RI-10-22.html
http://www.telescopes.ru/manuals.phtml
http://www.okiegunsmithshop.com/rem66.jpg
http://www.gunsworld.com/exploded/rem66.htm
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/manual/english
Weapontech said:
My understanding was that the C10's were intended for use by Cadets and for marksmanship training in .22 cal indoor ranges. I have never seen one though and have no idea if they were actually used for this purpose or not.
Weapontech said:
I wouldn't call the three round burst garbage, and I have extensive experience on both. It has it's place. One of the main drives behind developing the 3-round burst was that many studies of troops returning fire in combat situations showed that there was a lot of 'spraying and praying', little fire discipline and wasting ammunition. By limiting the amount of rounds discharged per trigger pull, it forces 'fire discipline' To say it is totally useless is not really a fair judgement, for those who are experienced in fire fights, fire discipline is not an issue but for greenies, troops who have never been under and returned fire, the amped up/fear generates a disregard for fire discipline and makes the 3 round burst limit neccesary. You will never know how you personally will react returning fire until you actually have to do it, one might like to think that all their training would prevent such blatent disregard for fire discipline. Personally, there are times when I wished I had both, a semi/burst/full would be a great option, a similar system to the HK MP5 series, you can drop in a trigger mechanism to suit your needs.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
spi said:
my understanding (somewhat limited at times) is that the C10 was to replace the Enfield C No7's in the cadet program. Problem occured when our wonderful government at the time made the AR15/M16 family into restricted weapons. Can't have cadets / yourh training on weapons of mass destruction, and different storage/transport requirements etc.... At the same time they were closing all the indoor ranges because of lead hazards. And to top things off they went out and issued daisy air rifles to every unit so they all compete using the air rifles no fancy ranges required.
Weapontech
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- On my way to Hell in a handbasket
The intention of the principal is well understood, however the execution was poor.echo4lima said:
Using the word garbage might be strong, but it is accurate in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other gun plummers in the CF. I am not saying it doesn't have a place, but the Gen III version of the burst fire system is not reliable. (Using a "Ratchet" mechanism has been proven as an ineffective and unreliable way to deliver burst fire). One example of the behaviour of the system is this; if you select the automatic mode and press and release the trigger quickly so that only 1 round is fired, the next time you press the trigger, it sometimes may not fire at all, or it may fire only 1 round. You need to release, and press again to reset the ratchet. (I have personally experienced this situation while at a famil shoot in Kentucky last year). You don't need that kind of complexity while under fire, or in close quarter engagements.
The CF examined the US burst system, and decided that it was better to have a functioning weapon 100% of the time. I for one agree, as do most of my friends currently taking fire on a daily basis in Afganistan.
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
As a Cadet about that time, I remember something about the No.7 replacement to be. I recall (very vaguely) the story that Cadets wouldn't get to shoot the C7 (shot the C1 once a year), but it was ok as there was to be a C7 style .22 cadet rifle. I recall thinking 'they'd better not mean that Squires Bingham POS'.... Then I turned 17 and got the C7. Never thought about it again till now.
I really think it's the ####s that cadets (AFAIK?) don't get to shoot rimfire anymore. More de-Liberalization tasks for our new govt?
If those C-10s exist. Where are they? That would be a neat find eh?
I really think it's the ####s that cadets (AFAIK?) don't get to shoot rimfire anymore. More de-Liberalization tasks for our new govt?
If those C-10s exist. Where are they? That would be a neat find eh?
- Location
- Edmonton, AB
They phased out the .22s in 96/97. I was a great shot with the Enfields.... but I sucked wang on the Daisy... too short, even with all the butt-plate extensions we had on hand.
