Canadian C7 & American M16A2

[Brian Dick]

I'm not really. It's just different. Armalite was the first place I checked actually but they no longer have it available. I'm pretty happy with my black rifles. The later Colt six position collapsible stock is a marked improvement too IMHO.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Eaglelord17]

I'm not really. It's just different. Armalite was the first place I checked actually but they no longer have it available. I'm pretty happy with my black rifles. The later Colt six position collapsible stock is a marked improvement too IMHO.

I still curse that collapsible stock. The new C7A2s are all too front heavy (weighing in at 10.5lbs) with none of the weight being distributed back. It makes for really uncomfortable shooting at the range. It also sucks because now I have no where to put my cleaning kit, which from a usage perspective is a big deal for me.

Looking at it from a service perspective, the rifle has now grown as heavy as the battle rifle it replaced (FN-C1), and is unbalanced (making it difficult/uncomfortable to shoot). Apparently they have already figured out what the next iteration of the rifle is, and apparently it is even more front heavy.

Overall the nicest C7 I had the pleasure of using was the original C7 with the carry handle/sight. Weighs in at about 6lbs, more than accurate enough for combat conditions, and I can fit my cleaning kit in the stock. Really quite a shame they don't let us use them anymore.

[Sentryduty]

I still curse that collapsible stock. The new C7A2s are all too front heavy (weighing in at 10.5lbs) with none of the weight being distributed back. It makes for really uncomfortable shooting at the range. It also sucks because now I have no where to put my cleaning kit, which from a usage perspective is a big deal for me.

When the C7A2 was phased in, summer 2005 in my unit, I did lament a number of the "improvements":

The ambidextrous charging handle seemed constantly be catching on equipment and popping the bolt just out of battery, made the forward assist useful.
The ambi-mag release would deftly eject a full magazine when carried close to the body, some tension "adjustments" in the field got that under control.
My rifle somehow missed the ambi-FCS which was great actually.
The Tri-Ad mount was silly, and added weight to the front, it had to be flipped wrong way around to mount my M203.
The Accu-Wedge made take-down slower by needed a tool to drift the rear takedown pin out, lots of those were discarded shortly after hitting CQ.
While I didn't like the adjustable buttstock at first, it became a godsend once the use of the plated body armor and LBV's became a daily use item.

Funny enough, the Bayonet 2000 was actually useful as a field tool unlike the old Nella versions, but having the bayonet mounted during sustained firing would cause the handle to melt and the barrel ring slide forward to cover the muzzle, resulting in a more than one being "shot off".

All that said, as a rifle the C7 series never let me down, but some of the bits of bolt-on stuff detracted from an already decently built rifle.

[browningautorifle]

All of what Eaglelord says is painfully true with no take backs...

Now Brian, the green stuff appears occasionally, but pricey. If you like we can PM about me procuring you some...? Or trying.

[Paul S.]

Jim, is the C79 sight the original ELCAN or its successor? What issues are there with it --- other than it being a bit big and expensive?

[browningautorifle]

It's the original, with tritium. There are several issues, one of which is if the helmet is against it or resting on it when shooting, you push the MPI as much as a meter at 100 M. One could say just move it forward, but then you lose your field of view. You're supposed to be about 2-3" eye relief. The thumb screws loosen easily, the body gets loose from the base quickly, it's very heavy...you spoke of the expense... Just a couple things.

[CODFan]

Don't mean to digress, but .... as far as weight and optic goes - I like this configuration from Colt/LMT/KAC ...

[browningautorifle]

digress

Not at all...I'd suspect that would be the sort of thing JTF2 might have in stock. Friends have eluded to such.

[Brian Dick]

I have an SBR Bushmaster in M4 configuration with a Colt 14.5" barrel and LMT SOPMOD stock which is a great weapon. Our SF and Airborne trials concluded that the 14.5" barrel is the best for their all around operational needs. I can totally agree with Eaglelord17's comments above about the M16A1/C7. I reckon I'm probably biased but I carried one many a mile and worked on plenty more during my short Army career. They were light, handy, well balanced, robust and plenty accurate. Now you can hang everything but the kitchen sink on the rifle and it does add lots of weight to the weapon system. An M14 and/or SLR have the added benefit of being able to shoot holes in concrete blocks!

Jim, I'll email you. Thanks.

[browningautorifle]

I never did understand all the mods that added so much weight that we exceeded the weight of the C1 rifle...I think I was the only one that noticed though.