Why such a cult following for Colt Canada / Diemaco ?

If you are planning to mount laser and like to use VTAC/BFG sling with a short bbl and handuard, the IUR is probably a safer choice than the M-lok (and key-mod too).

M-lok accessories cannot be attached too close to the base of the barrel ( due to lack of space) and therefore slots are not generally cut right up to the upper (because there is a barrel nut and threaded portion of the receiver) , this means the closest M-lok QD sling swivel must be mounted at least about 5-7slots from the upper.

If you put a QD sling swivel there, it can potentially interfere with your support hand. Not a problem if you have 12" hand guard and 16" barrel, but for a 9"hand guard with a 10.5 to 11.5 bbl, adding a flip up front site, a laser and a pressure switch there isn't much space left. the sling swivel could either be too close or in the way of your hand.
 
epm4 said:
Reason being the process, the materials, and thousands of hours trying to break them. Every part on rifle was put to certain tests for Canadian weather and extra durability. Bolts have a minimum 30,000 round life tested, when Colt USA bolts are around 15,000. Every top tier unit uses them including myself in the Canadian armed forces. If you seen what they are put through you would buy one today. I personally have gotten a plant tour of Colt Canada and it blew me away. I've lit cigarettes off of hot rifles and kick started frozen ones, tried tested and true.
Click to expand...

How many other companies small arms have you done that too besides CC. ?
 
epm4 said:
Reason being the process, the materials, and thousands of hours trying to break them. Every part on rifle was put to certain tests for Canadian weather and extra durability. Bolts have a minimum 30,000 round life tested, when Colt USA bolts are around 15,000. Every top tier unit uses them including myself in the Canadian armed forces. If you seen what they are put through you would buy one today. I personally have gotten a plant tour of Colt Canada and it blew me away. I've lit cigarettes off of hot rifles and kick started frozen ones, tried tested and true.
Click to expand...

Well that about sums it up. You said you have taken the tour. Are or were you a DP2/DP3? When did you have the chance to tour the facility?

-J
 
Hmmmm,..top tier mfg,made in Canada...more enamored with Diemaco than Colt,..but the name is ok too..Remember when the very first C7's were issued and it was known that nothing Diemaco made would be available for civilian use-those were dark days indeed...
 
$kull said:
I'm pretty sure DD makes barrels to those specs. 1500$ is not bad at all.
Click to expand...

Nobody makes barrels/AR rifles to the more stringent mil-spec. standards of our Canadian forces except CC.

saskcop said:
Any way you slice it, it is still restricted and with one stroke of a socialist pen, they are all gone ....
Click to expand...

The same thing could/may be said for all semi.-auto.'s (Bill S-223) are all firearms in general...

bsand said:
I dunno about the rest, but I shoot the #### outta my CC. Last time I cleaned my bore was over 2k rounds ago, and I've logged almost 4k rounds since I bought mine in January. Not one single malfunction with the rifle. I haven't cleaned the bcg since June and shot it in 3 or 4 matches since without any failures. I paid the premium for a gun that won't stop running and is reliable in ALL conditions. And that is exactly what I got along with a Made in Canada gun.
Click to expand...

Here, here enough said...

Cheers D
 
Zeroed-In said:
Nobody makes barrels/AR rifles to the more stringent mil-spec. standards of our Canadian forces except CC.
Click to expand...


The mil-spec is NATO based, not Canadian. That being said, very few manufacturers actually test to any part of the spec and I am pretty confident that, out of manufacturers that do at least some level of NATO testing, none are testing as thoroughly as CC does. The majority of AR's out there would not pass all of the NATO testing.

-J
 
Bolt Hole said:
The mil-spec is NATO based, not Canadian. That being said, very few manufacturers actually test to any part of the spec and I am pretty confident that, out of manufacturers that do at least some level of NATO testing, none are testing as thoroughly as CC does. The majority of AR's out there would not pass all of the NATO testing.

-J
Click to expand...

This "NATO testing" thing got thrown around a lot, but there seems to be a lot of confusion of what it does and what it is actually. NATO AC225-D14 is a collection of tests for evaluating weapons. It is not an on-going product testing protocol. It is not testing for adherence to the technical package or QA + QC. NATO is concerned with interchangeability and common protocol, it doesn't dip its finger as to how something should be made. Hence we got a NATO ammo but everyone is making it slightly different, and certainly they are not of the same tolerance and precision.

The actual QA + QC is driven by the particular government specification concerning acceptance, part of it is a bunch of examinations and testings before weapons are accepted. To actually make sure the company does not lose money for repeated rejection, the company better has the appropriate economical level of QA and QC.

That drives the need to have ISO ( for QA policies and procedures ) and QC ( sample testing components...etc). And because of these needs, a mil-spec system created by the US is developed to facilities all the quality assurance needs in procurement for all different tiers of contractors. So I want to build a weapon for a contract, I will buy a "mil spec steel" because the steel mills will have all the QC and QA needed to make the material according to the composition needed within a certain degree of variance, then I won't have to test my steel before making the weapons.

Now back to the topic - there are lots of talk about more "stringent" mil spec and "nato testing". The substance is that, if we want to talk intelligently about these things, we need to know exactly what the spec is and then compare it to other spec. The fact is, within NATO, Canada may have a different spec for a particular small arm from the US, we might copy some of theirs and create some on our own.
 
greentips said:
This "NATO testing" thing got thrown around a lot, but there seems to be a lot of confusion of what it does and what it is actually. NATO AC225-D14 is a collection of tests for evaluating weapons. It is not an on-going product testing protocol. It is not testing for adherence to the technical package or QA + QC. NATO is concerned with interchangeability and common protocol, it doesn't dip its finger as to how something should be made.
Click to expand...

Except Colt Canada is NATO AQAP certified, which means NATO inspectors actually do come and do QA/QC testing to ensure CC products continue to meet the TDP, as do procurement officers from various customers/governments.
 
greentips said:
This "NATO testing" thing got thrown around a lot, but there seems to be a lot of confusion of what it does and what it is actually. NATO AC225-D14 is a collection of tests for evaluating weapons. It is not an on-going product testing protocol. It is not testing for adherence to the technical package or QA + QC. NATO is concerned with interchangeability and common protocol, it doesn't dip its finger as to how something should be made. Hence we got a NATO ammo but everyone is making it slightly different, and certainly they are not of the same tolerance and precision.

The actual QA + QC is driven by the particular government specification concerning acceptance, part of it is a bunch of examinations and testings before weapons are accepted. To actually make sure the company does not lose money for repeated rejection, the company better has the appropriate economical level of QA and QC.

That drives the need to have ISO ( for QA policies and procedures ) and QC ( sample testing components...etc). And because of these needs, a mil-spec system created by the US is developed to facilities all the quality assurance needs in procurement for all different tiers of contractors. So I want to build a weapon for a contract, I will buy a "mil spec steel" because the steel mills will have all the QC and QA needed to make the material according to the composition needed within a certain degree of variance, then I won't have to test my steel before making the weapons.

Now back to the topic - there are lots of talk about more "stringent" mil spec and "nato testing". The substance is that, if we want to talk intelligently about these things, we need to know exactly what the spec is and then compare it to other spec. The fact is, within NATO, Canada may have a different spec for a particular small arm from the US, we might copy some of theirs and create some on our own.
Click to expand...

I should have put "mil-spec" in quotations since it isn't really the best representation of what I was referring to. There are two aspects that come to mind, which you seem to have covered pretty well. There is the quality aspect and then there is the design performance/capability aspect. I was referring to the latter, which, depending on the requirements laid out by the guys in green (insert military of your choice here), is generally evaluated using NATO specified testing protocols. Those protocols are found in D14 as you have mentioned and are used pretty widely by NATO countries as a basis for evaluation. These protocols allow for apples to apples comparison of performance evaluations. The tests chosen for evaluation are dependant on what the weapon will be used for and decided upon by the purchasing party. For some, this may include a couple of the tests. For others it my include them all. For others yet, it may include modified variants or additions to the listed protocols.

There are similar NATO documents for just about all manner of testing pertaining to military equipment. Another example would be STANAG 4569 and AEP-55 used as a testing protocol and definitive guide to protection levels for vehicle armour.

What I was getting at is simply that most companies making AR's don't do internal evaluations using D14 or have only ever evaluated their weapons against parts of the protocols listed or, for that matter, anything remotely equivalent. I know that CC evaluates their designs against every applicable aspect of D14 and even beyond to more stringent regimes in a lot of cases. On top of that, they have had extensive, in the field vetting of their designs via entities such as the Canadian military as well as several others around the world. That is a pretty solid track record for design performance and quality of manufacture.

None of this, of course, has any bearing on the quality aspects that you have listed, which are equally important. Having the best designed guns isn't worth anything without a good quality management system controlling the build quality of the product. CC is ISO 9001:2008 certified and provides a level of quality that allows for complete parts interchangeability. I can take a bucket of new CC parts that have passed CC's quality protocols and make a gun that will work properly every time, regardless of combinations that I choose.

-J
 
Bolt Hole said:
Well that about sums it up. You said you have taken the tour. Are or were you a DP2/DP3? When did you have the chance to tour the facility?

-J
Click to expand...

They no longer do tours on QL6/DP3 wpns supervisor course, since they moved the course to gag town :(
 
Dsiwy said:
They no longer do tours on QL6/DP3 wpns supervisor course, since they moved the course to gag town :(
Click to expand...

They're bringing the DP3 back to Borden (I have like 4-5 friends on the very last franco one that is running in Gagetown right now) so they will probably start going back to Kitchener. Moving all the stuff to Gagetown and then back sure was profitable! :p [/sarcasm]
 
-[Crosshair]- said:
They're bringing the DP3 back to Borden (I have like 4-5 friends on the very last franco one that is running in Gagetown right now) so they will probably start going back to Kitchener. Moving all the stuff to Gagetown and then back sure was profitable! :p [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

Good it should of never of moved to Gagetown in the first place.
 
dfritter1 said:
Except Colt Canada is NATO AQAP certified, which means NATO inspectors actually do come and do QA/QC testing to ensure CC products continue to meet the TDP, as do procurement officers from various customers/governments.
Click to expand...

NATO AQAP is a quality management program. In fact AQAP is based on ISO, which can be certified as a supplement to ISO certification.

NATO doesn't really send NATO people to do certification, usually what happens with this kind of certification is that the company itself will hire a consultant firm to do the annual audit and re-certification based on NATO's published requirements for this particular certification. The objective the of annal audit and multi-year certification is not to do "QA/QC testing to ensure products to meet spec". The objective of quality management program is "principal" oriented. One of the areas it is concerned with is the existence of process, whether they are documented and actually carried out. The audit and the recertification may "test" the process by re-performaning the procedures. This is not to be confused with government inspector that are put on site to do or supervise acceptance testing for a particular contract.

Basically, if a company deals with NATO country and any governments, they will have ISO and AQAP as an add-on.

Bolt Hole said:
None of this, of course, has any bearing on the quality aspects that you have listed, which are equally important. Having the best designed guns isn't worth anything without a good quality management system controlling the build quality of the product. CC is ISO 9001:2008 certified and provides a level of quality that allows for complete parts interchangeability. I can take a bucket of new CC parts that have passed CC's quality protocols and make a gun that will work properly every time, regardless of combinations that I choose.

-J
Click to expand...

ISO is principal oriented. It sounds very mythical, certainly the existence of a quality management system should be able to handle the implementation of procedures to make sure consistent dimension, one of the many things that needs to be done. It certainly has the benefit to the bottom line of a company and it is almost a basic requirement to do businesses. Many "mid sized" manufacturers are ISO certified. LMT, Daniel Defence, and of course FN and HK....big guys like Remington arms. If you are dealing with the government or working as a contractor for other government primary contractors, most likely you need to have ISO. It is almost like your IPSC black badge, the basic credential to even register for the game.
 
Last edited:
Kidd X said:
Colt Canada being a subsidiary of Colt USA/ Colt Defense is already a gov contractor and focuses on gov sales. Buying guns in Canadian dollars for the British is a no brainer as the British Pound is nearly double the value of a Canadian Dollar. Colt also has a long record and is a well known company. Buying with tax payers dollars makes the cost a non issue, gov cheques don't bounce. Trying to import DD or BCM rifles for a small department is a paperwork nightmare compared to dealing with CC a local company, especially when warranty is concerned. There's also the cult following that influences a departments decisions. Contrary to what many believe the vast majority of LEO's are not gun people.
Click to expand...

Lol you can skip the lesson on CC's relationship to Colt and the rookie stuff like not all cops are gun people.

You didn't really answer the questions, and you contradict yourself several times in the same paragraph. The GBP is higher than the USD as well, so that would be no reason not to go with an American made weapon. Additionally you point out that gov is less concerned with cost, so which is it? You point out that Diemaco/CC is a well known and reputable company, so how would they have developed this positive reputation if their rifles were overpriced? Many of the foreign governments that adopted Colt Canada rifles face no more barriers importing them from Canada than they would from the U.S.

If other AR's are just as good but cheaper, why would anyone overseas adopt CC rifles? The answer is either they're not as good, the company doesn't have the production capacity to meet contract requirements, or the company is happy producing Gucci AR's for the civvy market. All of that is fine, but it's dishonest to represent the CC as overpriced when you're not comparing comparable products designed for the same purpose.
 
Kidd X said:
Colt Canada being a subsidiary of Colt USA/ Colt Defense is already a gov contractor and focuses on gov sales. Buying guns in Canadian dollars for the British is a no brainer as the British Pound is nearly double the value of a Canadian Dollar. Colt also has a long record and is a well known company. Buying with tax payers dollars makes the cost a non issue, gov cheques don't bounce. Trying to import DD or BCM rifles for a small department is a paperwork nightmare compared to dealing with CC a local company, especially when warranty is concerned. There's also the cult following that influences a departments decisions. Contrary to what many believe the vast majority of LEO's are not gun people.
Click to expand...

One of the contract stipulation dealing with MOD is that a company biding on a contract can't have gone bankrupt. Which disqualifies Colt USA from bidding on a contract. That's one of the reason Colt Canada has the contract.
 
People are whining about what I want to spend my money on? Do you go to strip clubs and piss on people's shoes for hiring the more expensive strippers for a lap dance too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom