The C7 Assault Rifle, M16, & AR15 family (C7A1, C7A2, C7 replacment, and C7 vs M16)

[diverdown]

I never had the chance to fire the M16, but am very familiar with the ol' C7.  We only had the opportunity to  let er' go on full auto a few times with live ammo, and I have to admit...it was hard to keep it from walking way up on me..especially firing from the hip.  I think I would prefer a 3 round burst as well, but having been disharged in 94, don't think I'll have to worry about that anymore 

 

[Scott]

I found it funny that the optical sights on the C& don't reduce down to the common ranges for engagement...seems a little sorta NOT THOUGHT THROUGH.

Does anyone prefer the old iron sights to the opticals? I have never used the iron sights but have heard several say that they liked them better, didn't have to worry about dropping your rifle and screwing up your zero.

Cheers!

 

[Spr.Earl]

You know whats truly sad? I have done more range time with the navy then I ever did with the RCDs...I think thats getting downright criminal and negligent.

No kidding,the most range time I ever had was on a Exchange with the R.E. in Sennybridge plus indoor range that was urban prep. for N.Ireland (S.L.R. with .22 conversion kit).

In my opinion,we all should go on the range at least twice a year and fire the C6,C7 and C9,so we all can be proficient with our light weapon's and like the old saying goes.
"Just in case like teat's on a bull."

 

[Scott]

I have to agree with you Earl. I don't know what name the yearly proficiency tests are going by now, but I can remember Warrior training. No rundown, just static shoots, what is the use of that? We can go do that with granddaddy's .22 at home if we want. Throw the rundown in I say and get these guys working!! Those rundowns were the most fun I had during QL#, they showed who could static shoot and who had the ability to shoot with a little bit of heat on them. My humble opinion anyway........

Cheers!

 

[mista_mo]

Is there a difference between the m-16A2 and the C7? I have heard from many people that the C7 is the exact same weapon as the M-16 and harbours all of it's advantages and disadvantages, but "adds nothing to the table" so to speak. I've heard this from some people I know who were in the USMC and US army. However, I have also heard different from my dad and other students who know more about these kind of theings then I do (I have a very limited knoledge about firearms) and they usually say something like this:

"The C7 has less recoil and longer barrel life then the M-16. It also is better suited to wear and tear then the M-16 is."

Is this true? Please, can someone answer this question for a curius student?

 

[Boots]

Hi,
i wont lie ..... i'm not actually in any defence force but i am a cadet in Australia. I was reading what u guys had to say and i thought u might b able 2 help me with something.
i'm doing an enginneering project on the F88 AuSteyr and  i keep coming across the term 'bull pup'. What does this mean??? my limited experience with the weapon has never revealed that. ne thing else that may help in my presentation 2 my class would b good.
thanx

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Bullpup means that the receiver and bolt is located in the butt of the weapon.  There are many pros and cons to this, the main pro being that a weapon can be a lot shorter than, say, an M16, but still have the same barrel length.  Cons include weapon handling, as most of the drills involve removing the weapon from the shoulder.

I have fired the Austrian Aug, liked the gun, hated the sights.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Here's a link to a story on the Steyr, which may help.

http://remtek.com/arms/steyr/aug/edit/augsof.htm

 

[Redeye]

I found it funny that the optical sights on the C& don't reduce down to the common ranges for engagement...seems a little sorta NOT THOUGHT THROUGH.

Does anyone prefer the old iron sights to the opticals? I have never used the iron sights but have heard several say that they liked them better, didn't have to worry about dropping your rifle and screwing up your zero.

Cheers!

A gun plumber would better clarify this than I, but as I understand it, the optical sight setting start at 200m because up to that point there is no significant drop - it is only beyond 200m that the sights have to be reduced.  That is to say, the settings are the the same for 25m as for 200m.

 

[George Wallace]

I found it funny that the optical sights on the C& don't reduce down to the common ranges for engagement...seems a little sorta NOT THOUGHT THROUGH.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  The sights are set at different increments from 200 on up for the most likely combat engagements.  It is not a 'Sniper' Scope.  The dial is easy to operate, and zero.  If proper care is taken the sights will maintain their zero.  I actually like them better than the iron sights.  My preference.

GW

 

[brin11]

The old flip type iron sights only had two settings anyway; the larger aperture for 200 m or less and the smaller aperture for over 200m.  Everyone has their own opinion whether they prefer the iron sights or the optical sight.  I'm more comfortable with the iron sights simply because I've had very little practice firing with the optical.  Speaking of range time.....

 

[George Wallace]

The old flip type iron sights only had two settings anyway; the larger aperture for 200 m or less and the smaller aperture for over 200m. Everyone has their own opinion whether they prefer the iron sights or the optical sight. I'm more comfortable with the iron sights simply because I've had very little practice firing with the optical. Speaking of range time.....

The two different apertures were not for range, but for day and night firing.   The range is set on the dial on the side, or more often by 'eye-balling'.

GW

 

[brin11]

The rear sight itself was only a flip type.   The large aperture actually had 0-2 stamped on it.   The adjustable drum was for windage adjustment for moving the MPI left and right.   Each click of the drum changed the MPI 1.5" at 100 metres.

 

[Boots]

Hey thanx 4 ur help.
i like iron sights but thats probs just coz thats what i normally use.

 

[mudgunner49]

Sapper, the C7 bolt ain't got nothin' on the .50's bolt. That thing should have a manual of its own.  

As for all the kiddies who badmouth the C7 without having fired it... well, you're simple. Can't rephrase that to make it sound any nicer. Sorry.

The only ***** is the barrel could stand to be a few inches shorter, a multi-position stock would be nice, and having a rail system would be better than guntaping **** like maglights on the handguards. And the C79 sight should be taken out back and put out of its misery. In essense, a heavy barrel C8 with a RAS and ACOG on it would be just the ticket IMO. Add an M14 or two in at the platoon level for DM purposes and you're laughing.

And there's no sense in switching to some experiemental caliber when 5.56 is the NATO standard and is battle proven. Of all the things the Army needs, ******* around in selcting a new rifle is not one of those.

Ditch the heavy barrel and I could not have said it better myself.   Oh, and a huge ammo allotment for soldiers to practice more in realistc environments (jungle lanes, reactive targets, FIBUA/MOUT/OBUA sites) - and if anyone doesn't want to shoot, I'll take your ammo for my guys...



blake

 

[mudgunner49]

Has there been any interest on the part of the Canadian Forces in the results of the US tests in changing the calibre of the M-16 to 6.88mm?

Absent the presence of someone with VERY deep pockets to fund the project, the 6.8 is DEAD in the water.  This isn't just me talking, this is news in the industry...


Blake

 

[KevinB]

Blake 6.8 is not dead - it was never alive.

I have seen it first hand and think it has some potential - but in a 12.5" Midlength shorty as a doorkicker gun for CAG guys and the like.   

As a 5.56mm replacement I cant see it - Over at professionsoldiers.com  I  posted a paper done by 1SFG as to why they did not want it (6.8)

  Anyway - this topic has not produced much - I just noticed it now.

The US Army just killed the XM-8 (thank god)

I think you will see in SCAR-L and SCAR-H a upgrade M16/M4/Sr25 platform that will be the next US joint service weapon (It is a USSOC program but the US ARMY signed on - and it will end up being our SARP III weapon (IMHO).

 

 

[mudgunner49]

Some stats you may find interesting.

"Studies of frontline combat during WW2 reveal that US troops expended 25, 000 small arms rounds for every enemy soldier they killed. In the Korean Warthe number doubled to 50, 000 rounds per enemy death. By the time the United States went to war in South East Asia, technological advances in weapons had made it possible to place a fully automatic rifle in the hands of every American infantryman, and the firepower of fully automatic "rock and roll" resulted in the expenditure of 200,000 rounds of ammunition for every enemy body."

Taken from
Inside the Crosshairs: Snipers in Vietnam
Michae lee Lanning


Keep in mind taht this calculation also included SA ammo from aviation assets as they belonged for the most part to the ARMY not the AIR FORCE.  As an examle, if a HH-53 doing CSAR expended it's full load of 7.62 from it's two Mini-guns (10k per gun IIRC), but no one could go down and count bodies, that's 20 of ammo with no body do show for it... kind of skews the stats a bit, dontcha think???

The case deflector was on the specs for the M16A2 and has nothing to do with "Canadian manners", nice as that sounds


Blake

 

[redleafjumper]

Sorry gang, I just thought I had to say that I prefer the good ol' FN C1A1.  It's a bit heavier that a C-7, and so is its 7.62mm ammo, but I believe it to be a much more durable rifle. 

One of the issues with the SARP was that a soldier could carry more 5.56 ammunition than 7.62 for the same weight.  My thought is that one would likely have to use more to achieve a similar effect.  (Yes, I know that SS109 is nasty stuff...) The staticians and actuaries'll tell you that most shooting takes place at close ranges, so the heavier 7.62 bullet isn't needed.  However, with some of the recent desert taskings ( so much in vogue nowadays) where there are long distances with limited cover, I believe that there is still a place for the venerable FN and its superior (IMHO) cartridge.  :warstory:

Certainly the important factor is less the rifle than the soldier behind it.  Range time and practicing those IA's & stoppages are what is really important. 

 

[MG34]

The FN was good in it's day ,unfortunately it's day was 30 years ago.The lighter weight modular design of the M16/M4/C7/C8/etcetc has surpassed the mian battle rifle by light years. I love shooting my FNC1A1 but would not want to carry it again on any battlefieldor operational tour.