Any Canucks in here serve with a C7A1?

[Knife_Sniper]

Recently I have been eying a build like this just for a unique AR15 variation. EDIT THE C7A2

http://www.coltcanada.com/Images/c7-annot.gif

Wondering what you (if any) have thought about the setup?

I have already owned an ELCAN and I know of their mount issues and I know it may be a heavy handed up front but I am wondering if anyone has anything to say about the style of weapon? Have you ever served with it and used the setup long term?

I think what attracts me to it is that it is mostly a KISS concept but it also has a bit of "reach out and touch someone" with the 20 inch barrel and a ELCAN. It is also unique. Many people build M16A4 clones... I want to build an C7A1 clone. ;)

I own two and a half AR15s already so don't think this will be my only weapon if TSHTF. :p

Thanks guys!

[N4LtRecce]

No experience with them, but no, you're not crazy, I think it looks neat too ;)

[bkb0000]

if you do decide to give it a shot, try to find out what exact buffer weight they use in the C7s. as i recall, you generally need something like an H3 or possibly heavier buffer to get them to run right.

[NickB]

if you do decide to give it a shot, try to find out what exact buffer weight they use in the C7s. as i recall, you generally need something like an H3 or possibly heavier buffer to get them to run right.

H2 carbine buffer with tungsten carbide weights rather than pure tungsten.

[bkb0000]

H2 carbine buffer with tungsten carbide weights rather than pure tungsten.

are non-C7 buffers pure tungsten, then?

[NickB]

are non-C7 buffers pure tungsten, then?

You can get H2 buffers with pure tungsten weights or with tungsten carbide weights. The only difference is the tungsten carbide are slightly lighter and less expensive.

[epitaph]

I served with the C7. In fact I was on the first basic course that had the C7's, back in `91, if memory serves.

The OP's picture is not a true C7. That looks to be a C7 upper mated with a C8 lower.

All in all, I didn't mind the C7. From what I was told, it was a hell of a lot better than lugging around the old FN's.

Besides owning a piece of Canadian military history, I wouldn't buy one.
Nothing at all wrong with it, just in my opinion, there are MUCH better options out there.

Oh, and I REALLY hated the optic. :p

[scottryan]

The OP's picture is not a true C7. That looks to be a C7 upper mated with a C8 lower.





What makes you think that?

It is a C7A2. A C7 has a fixed handled upper with a field sight.

[rifleman2000]

I served with the C7. In fact I was on the first basic course that had the C7's, back in `91, if memory serves.

The OP's picture is not a true C7. That looks to be a C7 upper mated with a C8 lower.

All in all, I didn't mind the C7. From what I was told, it was a hell of a lot better than lugging around the old FN's.

Besides owning a piece of Canadian military history, I wouldn't buy one.
Nothing at all wrong with it, just in my opinion, there are MUCH better options out there.

Oh, and I REALLY hated the optic. :p

What about the optic did you hate? I ask because we used a version of the ELCAN on M240s and M249s and I REALLY hated them too. The rubber armor got loose, and I never encountered one that the reticle light functioned on.

I hate the ELCAN, at least those few I have had experience with. Not rugged or dependable enough.

On a M240 you did not need them, as long as you had a good tripod and AG to adust the fall of your rounds.

[epitaph]

What makes you think that?

It is a C7A2. A C7 has a fixed handled upper with a field sight.

I think that because the C7 didn't come with a carbine stock.

The C8 did.

I realize it's an C7A2, but my observation was based on the stock. 7's have a fixed, 8's have an adjustable.

[epitaph]

What about the optic did you hate? I ask because we used a version of the ELCAN on M240s and M249s and I REALLY hated them too. The rubber armor got loose, and I never encountered one that the reticle light functioned on.

I hate the ELCAN, at least those few I have had experience with. Not rugged or dependable enough.

On a M240 you did not need them, as long as you had a good tripod and AG to adust the fall of your rounds.

You nailed it, right there.

It was WAY too big. (Nothing like carrying a soup can on the top of your rifle) Never worked quite right. Was as loose as a $2 hooker.

All in all, just a sub standard optic. Again, just my humble opinion.

[bkb0000]

i dont think i've ever heard anything positive about the elcans.. they seem to be more problematic than eotechs.

it's neither a C7 nor C7A1... the weapon pictured, and the weapon we're all talking about, is the C7A2.. which, as far as i recall, is the only version with a rifle upper and carbine lower. the op mis-wrote, and nobody bothered/thought to correct

[Knife_Sniper]

I have been doing some reading that says the Canadians took colt's data package and made some odd 150 modifications to the weapon.


Canadian assault rifle key part of SAS arsenal

C7 is standard issue for Canadian troops, a hit with the British

Michael Higgins
National Post, with files from The Daily Telegraph

The Special Air Service, Britain‘s elite troops, will go into Afghanistan armed with a formidable weapon designed in Canada.

The C7 assault rifle will be the weapon of choice for many of the SAS soldiers because of its accuracy and durability.

The C7, the standard rifle for Canadian troops, has proved a big hit with the elite soldiers; it outperformed Britain‘s own SA80 and the American M16 during tests by the SAS.

The SAS began testing the weapon two years ago and, impressed by its reliability and heavy firepower, bought enough to equip the entire regiment.

The weapon is manufactured by Diemaco, Kitchener, Ont., and costs upwards of $2,000 a gun.

Optional equipment includes a 40mm grenade launcher, attached under the main barrel. SAS troopers will carry about 20 of the anti-personnel and anti-tank grenades.

There is also a laser pointer and a night image intensification sight, also known as a Kite sight. A silencer can be fitted on the end of the barrel giving the gun sniper capacity.

The magazine holds 30 rounds and the rate of fire is 700 to 940 rounds per minute. According to its specifications, it has a range of 400 metres.

A special forces source said: "This weapon is worth its weight in gold. You just don‘t want something that is ‘spray and pray‘ and you want a weapon you can absolutely rely on when you pull the trigger."

The C7 is ideal as a weapon for the close-quarter battle that the SAS is likely to experience in the caves, ravines and built-up areas of Afghanistan.

A spokesman for Diemaco said: "The thing about the C7 over the M16 is its durability. The barrel life is much longer and its general longevity better. Small but significant changes, very minor changes, make it function better in poor conditions -- mud and poor climatic conditions."

The C7 was designed in the mid-1980s and was based on America‘s M16. It has since been sold to the U.K., the Netherlands and Denmark.

AND


Hi Steve
I apologize for not answering sooner. I‘m afraid I have been avoiding the
alligators chewing on my ankles to take care of the ones feeding higher up.
To answer your questions as presented:
The effective range published does not have much to do with the barrel but
is an infantry doctrine distance to do with the whole system including the
man, sights, weapon ammunition and expected employment. So when you see
effective range, it is almost always a subjective assessment of the system
capability derived by the user instructor (CTC) and rifle requirements
office (DLR), usually before the weapon is even bought. In the case of the
C7 it included iron sights and was extended (I think) when the C79 sight and
the C7A1 came along. The reference to the rifles origins (M16A1E1) is in
reference to the sight option first chosen by the CF. The heavy front
profile, 1 turn in 7inch barrel is definitely M16A2. As is the cartridge
deflector, handguards and many other changes.

Now lets talk barrels:
The C7 barrel is not the same as any M16 barrel except for the exterior
profile which is M16A2. The Material is to a formula developed here in
Diemaco (under Gov‘t contract) so that the entire bore and chamber
configuration can be integrally formed in one operation on a rotary hammer
forge. This process produces a barrel that is much stronger than the US
M16A2 barrel. The bore dimensions were developed to fire C77 ammunition,
(Chamber, bullet lead, diameters) the bore has dimensional reduction as the
bullet moves forward (squeeze) to increase life and accuracy. The bore is
plated with harder chrome than the M16. This allows greater wear life (2 to
3 times M16) and lets us machine C9 barrels from the same barrel blank. The
SFW was recently tested and purchased by the UK special forces and won in
competition against the Swiss SIG series rifles and the H&K G36 rifle. This
barrel is now in use by the Special Forces in five countries and the US Navy
Seals have expressed interest in putting them in the M4 Carbines that they
have.
We have just completed a C8 Carbine upgrade program for Canada which is a
new barrel with an improved chamber and stronger extractor spring assembly
and a weaker ejector spring. These are the same internal configuration as
our very successful SFW barrel.

Differences:
The C7 rifle and C8 Carbine is made under license with a Tech Data Package
provided by Colt to the Canadian Gov‘t. Diemaco reviewed the design and
made about 150 changes to the drawing package before Canadian production.
These are to numerous to mention her but include things like materials and
processes as well as a different barrel configuration and manufacturing
processes.

The improved handguard we designed here after CWO John Ginn kept beating the
Colt version off the weapon on the parade square. You probably can‘t tell
from the outside but if the you take the handguard off, you will notice two
types. The improved version has two large ribs under the heat shield and
three interlocking ribs on either edge as well as different material. These
were introduced late in the program so they had to be interchangable and be
a good match with the old handguard.

Another change you may notice is the small diameter front sight post that we
developed when soldiers complained that the US large square one actually
obscured the target at ranges of 300 and greater.

I hope this helps you with the discussion and thank you for your interest in
the C7.

Ian Anderson
ILS Supervisor
Product Engineering Dept.
Diemaco a division of Heroux- Devtek

Please note: Any opinions expressed or implied in this email are personal
are not necessarily those of Heroux Devtek or Diemaco

Also a few countries seemed to have adopted the Canadian rifle over our M16.

I am wondering WHY. Ok, so you have a great barrel... what else makes it a better choice over an M16? Forget the ELCAN for a moment... what is the big picture here? It appears that Colt Canada produces a very well made version of our M16 for the maple leaf country. Colt is considered top tier, so does Canada do it even better? Interesting.

[William B.]

http://coltcanada.com/

That's some good research you've done, Knife Sniper. Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I, too, had an Elcan on my M249 back in '05. I didn't like it very much either. Mainly because it was so big. My reticle did light up, but I never really felt like that gave me any kind of significant advantage.

[30 cal slut]

hmm. wonder if i can get my hands on one of them canadian barrels. :D

[ssgjason]

hmm. wonder if i can get my hands on one of them canadian barrels. :D

I have wondered the same thing...
They make a midlength version too.

[scottryan]

I have been doing some reading that says the Canadians took colt's data package and made some odd 150 modifications to the weapon.



AND



Also a few countries seemed to have adopted the Canadian rifle over our M16.

I am wondering WHY. Ok, so you have a great barrel... what else makes it a better choice over an M16? Forget the ELCAN for a moment... what is the big picture here? It appears that Colt Canada produces a very well made version of our M16 for the maple leaf country. Colt is considered top tier, so does Canada do it even better? Interesting.



It is not necessarily the materials or manufacturing difference (which are not really that significant), the Canadian configurations are more desirable for experienced AR15 people.

Things like A1 sights, tele stocks on rifles, 1/7 twist lightweight barrels are what makes the Canadian guns appealing to more sophisticated users.

[JWNathan]

So would anyone have a lead on where one could get the FSB rail assembly? Im wanting to do a similar build minus the ELCAN myself and am just waiting for my upper to show up(BCM). But then again Id love to find the handgaurd/carryhandle/foregrip assembly so I could build a wannabe LSW.
-Jesse

[jaygee]

I could be smokin' it here, but it seems to me that we "the people"...the average AR consumer, have access
to very nearly everything you could want to install in your AR even now, or mighty close to it. Outside of
a truly top shelf A2 Gov't bbl., as in going beyond mil spec., what could we be missing....especially in the
typical enthusiast tastes we have in the states. The US military buys a standardized product because they
have to, to maintain continuity. That is one big advantage to being a commercial consumer ...I can go out
and buy a 16" Middie, exactly the way I want it, with exactly the right barrel, and barrel material I want.
I'm not limited to what may or may not cut it with Big Army. Same with optics, and anything else I want to
hang on my stick.

[boltcatch]

And ammo, don't forget ammo.... :D

[emfourbinator]

Yo...best part of the C7A2 is no doubt, the barrel, altho I'd chop it to 18". The rest of the parts,
except for the receivers, belong in the junk box, or in some other application. Just because the
AR platform is the best in the universe, doesn't mean everyone who gets their hands on it is
going to do it right!