1944 question

[bish777]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The C7 rifle and C7A2 carbine both fire the same ammo, so your "argument" holds no water.

Canada never chose the "AR15" we made the C7 with 144 modifications to the basic Colt design - and made it so well that Colt just bought out Diemaco, the Canadian manufacturer. The C7 outperforms the M16 on every level - accuracy, durability, rate of fire.

Doesn't change the fact the carbine will fire the same ammo(!)

I guess we know how much weight to give to your posts now.

So youve established that Canda uses an locally manufactured AR15 variant, much like the eastern bloc countries used modified AKM variants-many of which were superior to the original AKM.

Technical argumehnts like this bear no semblance in reality as most modern kit choices are eco-political in nature. No doubt colt got a handsome licence fee for the C7.If you believe otherwise your going off into realms of severe naivety.

And Panzer 76, having worked alongside US forces in the field for a number of years i can say i was impressed with alot of the infantrymen-alot were dumb gruts in the sense of the phrase. Not all but alot. Ironically some of your best troops were your national guardsman who had been called up. They were an intellectual cut above your regular troops.

I base my prejudice on actual experience rather than jingoism.

[roqf77]

have you got a reference for the 144 modifications and what they are? because everywhere i look it states the c7 as being a minor modification to the m-16?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

have you got a reference for the 144 modifications and what they are? because everywhere i look it states the c7 as being a minor modification to the m-16?

Most are minor milling differences - major mods include

* extra twist to the rifling for greater accuracy

* plastic better able to stand arctic conditions

* heavier barrel

* full automatic setting (as well as repetition)

also the 3.5 power ELCAN sight, though it can be replaced with an iron sight or any number of other attachments due to the Weaver rail

I've read at least one reference to the SAS using them in Afghanistan and declaring them superior to any other small arm they had access to, including SA-80 and M-16 IIRC.

Here is a link. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/557864/posts

[ July 26, 2005, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-macpher-2.htm

Article here by combat troop leader in Afghanistan - note the complaints about the "long barrel" of the C7.

The final complaint is the continued use of the 20inch (50cm) long barrel. From B Coy’s experience in Afghanistan, long barrels make operations in confined areas (whether inside armoured vehicles or during urban operations) difficult. Although the long barrel offers excellent ballistic performance for the 5.56mm SS109 round, the high performance of today’s ammunition allows for comparable performance from shorter barrels which allow the soldier to manoeuvre more easily.

Addressing the issue of the long barrel, B Coy became the first infantry company in Canada to be issued a new 16inch (40cm) heavy barrel. Arriving simply as an upper receiver, it was married-up with the standard C7A2 lower receiver. The now shorter weapon was well received by soldiers, proving to be a great asset when negotiating the tight corridors of Kabul’s streets. The ballistic performance of the shorter barrel equalled the original barrel on the range. Although 4inches (10cm) difference may seem minor to a laymen, it was greatly appreciated by the lucky infantrymen who carried them. The general consensus of the company was that all infantrymen should carry the 16inch barrel (as in the US Army with M16s).

And oh my, look, the ballistics are the same for the shorter barrel.

[ July 26, 2005, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

michael you not in any position to lecture my brother. read your earlier posts you wernt aware of the difference in ballistics of the 2 weapons, which are painfully obvious, so dont get cocky..

See my last post - according to a combat troop leader, there is no difference in ballistics, which was what I had said originally.

So to sum up what I had said three pages ago - if there is no ballistic difference in performance between a rifle version and a carbine version, it only makes sense to adopt the carbine universally - as there is a real advantage the shorter weapon offers in close quarters combat, storing the weapon in a vehicle, etc., and not a single advantage to having a long rifle, with the exception that it looks better for drill and ceremonial. Still giggle when I see a scarlet tunic and bearskin clad Guardsman playing with the SA80. The drill movement where it is clenched between the knees is especially ridiculous. Can't recall Stand On Your Arms Reversed either but seem to recall it was silly as well.

Sorry...what was it that was so "painfully obvious" again?

[ July 26, 2005, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[roqf77]

well actualy here! http://nightoperations.com/C-7_A2.htm

if you read carefully it states the effective range of the carbine version is under 100 metres.

[roqf77]

sorry 45-50m the 90-95m is the c7a3. so there is obviously. no offence intended but that guy need to stop chonging the weed.

[roqf77]

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm

if you look here, undermatching conditions the next xloset rifle in terms of desert reliability to the sa-80 a2 is the m-16a2. sa-80 a2 85% m-16 a2 46%.

[roqf77]

http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0211/1002111301.asp

another interesting post for information on the sa-80 a2. read it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

well actualy here! http://nightoperations.com/C-7_A2.htm

if you read carefully it states the effective range of the carbine version is under 100 metres.

That was written by a corporal. And I believe he is a regular at army.ca where I am a moderator. Maybe you'd like to discuss it with him there? Ask him yourself at http://army.ca

Anyway, his conclusion? "The C-7A3 16” mid-length is a balance of maneuverability/compactness, yet retains lethality and accuracy out to the ranges required by modern combat"

The C7 barrel was 20 inches, so you only prove my point, don't you.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm

if you look here, undermatching conditions the next xloset rifle in terms of desert reliability to the sa-80 a2 is the m-16a2. sa-80 a2 85% m-16 a2 46%.

What is this post in response to? If it is about the C7, well, the C7 isn't even mentioned on the page. Can you be more direct when posting your google searches with regards to whom you are speaking to?

[roqf77]

sorry can you post a link to the thread im tired and cant be bothered to search around for now.

[roqf77]

to you about the performence of the sa-80 in regards to the c-7. the comment you made in a previous post on this page.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2002/0211/1002111301.asp

another interesting post for information on the sa-80 a2. read it.

Not seeing the point here - did anyone ever claim the SA-80 was a star performer?

Anyway, I posted that the Canadian Army is following the modern trend of replacing long barreled rifles with carbines, and that in our case, the carbine is essentially the same gun. While the C8 carbine (with 14.5" barrel) I mentioned does have differing ballistics, the shorter C7A2 with 16" barrel performs just as well as the 20" barrel C7. My point was that the shorter barrel is not a mistake, which I seem to think was your belief.

Given that the ballistics remain the same, what, then, is the harm in replacing the long rifles with the shorter barrels? Was it not your contention that to do so was a mistake?

Sum up for me, please, what your position is as I am now quite thoroughly confused.

You posted a corporal from PPCLI stating the 16" barrel is just dandy, and I've posted a captain of the PPCLI stating that the ballistic difference between the 16 and 20 inch barrels is nil.

[Matthias]

just to point out, wasn't the m16 changed to 3 shot burst from full auto because it stoped it jaming and not because its better then full auto?

(as mentioned in )

Ak Vs M16

(tis a long but good read)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

sorry can you post a link to the thread im tired and cant be bothered to search around for now.

The quote with his conclusion comes from the very link you yourself provided; it is near the bottom of the page.

[roqf77]

again i was just posting in, regards to your point of the ballistic difference between the c-7 and c-8. what is the effective range of the c-7. i presume it to be 400m along with the m-16, a reduction of effective range and muzzle velocity to 50m from 400m. is a ballistic difference is it not?

look lets live and let live. we both are posting the same stuff over and over. if you go back this is pretty much what ive been saying three pages back this isnt going anywhere.

[roqf77]

no you said discuss it on the website you linked me. i thought you were talking about a specific conversation/thread you wanted me to post on.

[roqf77]

"Sum up for me, please, what your position is as I am now quite thoroughly confused."

vice versa.

The c-8 has lower effective range and lower muzzle velocity. also causes the wound channel at a lower ranges? is this not a diufference in ballistics please explain?

and well if you read it it points out the a-2 performes better than its competetion. and that claims of unreliability in iraq and afganistan have been massivly exagerrated.

matt yes that is what i heard. also ammo constraints on what a soldier could carry was a factor.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

no you said discuss it on the website you linked me. i thought you were talking about a specific conversation/thread you wanted me to post on.

No, I said the guy who created that site posted there and if you wanted to seriously get into it, I am sure he would oblige you.

Anyway, I agree, we can live and let live - went back to look at your original posts and thought you were trying to make the case that the shorter rifles/carbines should not be replacing rifles - if I read you correctly, you actually said something different, noting that using a single reason to replace all rifles for carbines was "silly". Which I won't disagree with.

[roqf77]

if you cant answer that then ive had enough. i cant be bothered. sorry to all for causing such a ruck. i.e paner 76 etc, nothing personal meant to anyone.

[roqf77]

i odnt think issuing carbines is stupid. but replacing all is silly. i tink 50-50 is a better idea.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

i odnt think issuing carbines is stupid. but replacing all is silly. i tink 50-50 is a better idea.

ok

[roqf77]

but of course with an sa-80 you get the smaller size and performence. however there is the problem of only being right handed firing, so its a trade off too.