How are C7's "Canadianized"?

We've forgotten the most important difference of all.

A C7 is in the hands of a Canadian soldier. At least when I was in, this meant that the overall level of proficiency was rather higher than that displayed by a soldier of equivalent rank carrying an M16. I learned this first-hand while on exercise with the armies of other nations.
 
you can make your own c7 fixed sight by changing your ar15a2 upper to colt ar15a1 upper with shell deflector. Colt used to sell a "govt" model in canada which was the civilian version of the C7.
 
w squared said:
We've forgotten the most important difference of all.

A C7 is in the hands of a Canadian soldier. At least when I was in, this meant that the overall level of proficiency was rather higher than that displayed by a soldier of equivalent rank carrying an M16. I learned this first-hand while on exercise with the armies of other nations.
Click to expand...

Also in the hands of Dutch, Norwegian and UK soldiers :slap:
 
Full auto as opposed to three shot burst. Apparently Canadian soldiers are well-trained enough to be trusted to do their own bursting when necessary. ;)
 
The manufaturing specs are/were tighter as Dimaco used air guaging from the start, also our acceptance criteria is much pickier than American, the chrome lining has to be exact the number of rounds until failure is much higher than american and internal components in the trigger mech are better made, i.e. radiused and precision cut/ground rater than just cut and tossed off the line if it was too sharp, or didn't work. The cold hammer forging was just the intermediate step in the barrel manufacturing process the deep center drilling is done to an increadible accuracy, the hammer forged barrel is guaged and chrome lined as I stated above, and the final machining done to exacting specs. finnaly the last thing noted was the poly/nylon used in the handguards and butt was different from the M16A2 so it would withstand extream cold better. Now most of these practices have been adopted by other manufacturers and Colt Canada does not have the same level of QC that Diemaco had but when first issued the C7/C7A1's were superior to the American M16A2 however I havent seen and M16A3 or A4 up close so I can't tell you how they are now. If I had to choose I would take a C7A1 over an M16A2 anyday. Ramble now off.
 
Last edited:
OK - I've waded my way thru the past 5 pages of incredibly painful reading and it's obvious that the majority of posters know nothing of which they speak and are merely repeating rumours and gossip.

The bottom line is "were there any changes?" and the answer to that is obviously YES, however none of them were substantial in nature nor did they effect the quality or durability or functionality of the rifle in any way (flame on - don Nomex suit now). The fact of the matter is that the changes were mostly so that the CF and the gov't could make the purchase more palatable to the public and get them to more easily swallow the cost of nearly $1500 per weapon less optical sight (I know that the originals had irons - I was around then...) and buy into the need to manufacture in Canada.

I have been issued C7's and M16's and have spent lots of time on the range with both as well as the M4 and have owned a bunch of AR's - not much difference in any of them. Certainly not enough to clam that the C7 is leaps and bounds ahead of the M16.

Having said that, Diemaco/Colt Canada does make one of the best barrels out there...


blake
 
If you take the pistol grip off an early C7 (pre 89) you will find a Colt marking and a unique serial number if I recall. So the lower receiver itself was nothing special. In 89 this marking disappeared so I assume Diemaco was then machining it's own lowers. Over the years, some replacement parts were strictly Diemaco, but many others were whatever the US supply system sold to Canada.

Our barrels may have been better than the US equivelant, but in my last few years of service (until 2003) the amount of ammo we were firing it would take a century to wear one out. I hope this has changed, and the guys are getting to shoot more often. A once a year visit to the range really wasn't going to make a marksman out of anybody. Of course, these last couple statements won't apply to the pre-roto workups, in which case ammo flowed a-plenty. I had never seen as big a pile of M72s on a range as before my last deployment.
 
..... Just to "stir the pot" so to speak, and digging back into fading memories. If I recall correctly, there was, when Canada first started to produce their "own" M16 a Court Case ( Civil ) over changes made, minor in nature, but enough that Colt tried to sue Diameco.... mostly it was over the raised walls around the magazine release and I think there were a couple of other minor changes. Again, this is from memory, and accuracy is not guaranteed, but the Court Case went nowhere, and the Canadian "improvements" were I think later incorporated into the American production. .... David K. ....:popCorn:
 
Colt licenses the design tot eh Cdn Gov't for Diemaco to produce and had to approve any changes -- for instance Colt refused the Canadian idea to have a complete heavy barrel.

Early Diemaco guns had more Colt parts in them more often than not -- and looking at most C7A2 in 2004 they still had a lot of Colt marked bolts and fire control parts...
 
Annd all this time I thought it was because C7's come fromt he factory packed in maple syrup rather than cosmoline .... You learn something every day I guess ... :D
 
MPI said:
;) Not my point, just wondering why Colt would want to interfere and mirco manage the specs?
Click to expand...

Because it wasn't part of the technical data package they agreed on, The CF want to go with a heavy barrel for "more accuracy" and they had no intention of mounting a M203 on it.
 
Major manufacturors even when licensing production can and do insist on right of oversight over any spec changes, if the changes are detrimental to either the product or major manufacturors own sales then it would be stamped on.
The only way around this is to pay patent fees and make your own versions to your own specs.
The US Govt had to pay Mauser patent fees for the 03 model! It was the only way to make the rifle that way, anything else and the US would have ended up with the K98.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom