C7a1 vs m16a3

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (farmcoot @ Feb. 06 2003,21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Completely unrelated to the M16 or C7, I heard from tests thats the SA-80 falls apart when you fire it. Lack of Design?<span id='postcolor'>

The SA80 has problems but it is a perfectly good weapon. The A2 is meant to address the problems. I will be shooting with it at Easter.

[farmcoot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Feb. 06 2003,14:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (farmcoot @ Feb. 06 2003,21<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Completely unrelated to the M16 or C7, I heard from tests thats the SA-80 falls apart when you fire it. Lack of Design?<span id='postcolor'>

The SA80 has problems but it is a perfectly good weapon. The A2 is meant to address the problems. I will be shooting with it at Easter.<span id='postcolor'>

Lots of perfectly "good" weapons have massive problems.

The Minister should listen to our troops, who have to use the SA80. I hope that the Minister read an article in The Times on Saturday,                                                                        

which quoted a 26-year-old lance corporal, who said of the SA80: To be honest, it is useless, it falls apart on you.

Another lance corporal, aged 23, agreed:

There are terrible malfunctions. Everyone knows it is a weapon that you couldn't rely on in a real war.

The article continues:

The British squaddies were frustrated because yesterday morning they were given an order not to discuss the SA80 with the press after revelations in The Times yesterday.

That is sinister. The article goes on:

At first they refused to talk about the weapon, which was strange because the British soldiers in Kosovo usually have an opinion on everything. But by last night, they were ready to speak out. "It's weird, because in the past they always told us to say to the press what you think is true," a squaddie said. "This is the first time in Kosovo that they have told us not to talk to the press."

Clearly, the Government are extremely worried about the matter and are trying to prevent the views of our troops in Kosovo from being heard.

Quoted from: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa....-14.htm

[MrMilli 0]

How many newspapers would the times sell if they published an article saying "SA80 working fine"

What you have there is people who are totally unqualified to comment, trying to sound intelligent and on the moral high ground, to score points against another party.

It works.

It doesn't work that well in extreme conditions

but

there is a reason there called extreme bloody conditions!

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Feb. 06 2003,22:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many newspapers would the times sell if they published an article saying "SA80 working fine"

What you have there is people who are totally unqualified to comment, trying to sound intelligent and on the moral high ground, to score points against another party.

It works.

It doesn't work that well in extreme conditions

but

there is a reason there called extreme bloody conditions!<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, apparently the SA-80 is ok now, the only thing is it requires some looking after.

Wasn't that the case with the M-16 anyway?

[Renagade 0]

The sa-80 feels like u could break it over ur knee or if u were whacking someone with the end of it plus on a documentry about soldiers ages ago one guy broke the bayonet in half, stabbing into one of the training bags

ps, in a battle situation do u just ditch the empty mags or do u keep them ?

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Feb. 07 2003,03:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The sa-80 feels like u could break it over ur knee or if u were whacking someone with the end of it plus on a documentry about soldiers ages ago one guy broke the bayonet in half, stabbing into one of the training bags <span id='postcolor'>

lol

I'm getting so sick of our military and it's half-arsed way of doing things. I mean, we still haven't got enough boots for all our soldiers. And given the fairly small number of troops we have that's just plain silly.

[drewb99 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, apparently the SA-80 is ok now, the only thing is it requires some looking after.

Wasn't that the case with the M-16 anyway?<span id='postcolor'>

M16 wasn't nearly so bad that magazines would fall out

M16A1 just jammed a lot and the government didn't like how people were spitting out all their ammo in full auto mode, so they gave it different, more reliable ammo and 3-round bursting. From what I hear though, it works fine now if you just clean it.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (drewb99 @ Feb. 07 2003,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 07 2003,01:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, apparently the SA-80 is ok now, the only thing is it requires some looking after.

Wasn't that the case with the M-16 anyway?<span id='postcolor'>

M16 wasn't nearly so bad that magazines would fall out

M16A1 just jammed a lot and the government didn't like how people were spitting out all their ammo in full auto mode, so they gave it different, more reliable ammo and 3-round bursting.<span id='postcolor'>

So far as I know the mags don't do that anymore. All the guns need is regular cleaning, albeit very regular.

Otherwise they are supposed to be fully functional, last I heard.

[Mister Frag 0]

As Shabadu said, the magazine release on the SA80 was changed to fix the problem.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Feb. 07 2003,03:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The sa-80 feels like u could break it over ur knee or if u were whacking someone with the end of it plus on a documentry about soldiers ages ago one guy broke the bayonet in half, stabbing into one of the training bags

ps, in  a battle situation do u just ditch the empty mags or do u keep them ?<span id='postcolor'>

All bayonettes break, they are thin. You obviously haven't used the SA80 as it is bloody heavy and wouldn't snap despite it's internal problems.

[Renagade 0]

Its not that heavy,maybe u just have little arms

[madmedic 0]

H&K took the contract to "improve" the SA-80.

From what I understand, there are still inherent problems with it though.

I do not believe there are any civillian registered ones in the U.S. though (if so, they are very rare)...So, I have not had the opportunity to fire one.

[Shabadu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Feb. 07 2003,05:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">H&K took the contract to "improve" the SA-80.

From what I understand, there are still inherent problems with it though.

I do not believe there are any civillian registered ones in the U.S. though (if so, they are very rare)...So, I have not had the opportunity to fire one.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I was wondering if any UK-army members could fill me in. I heard the latest version of the SA-80 has no problems other than it requires regular cleaning.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ Feb. 07 2003,05:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its not that heavy,maybe u just have little arms <span id='postcolor'>

It is much heavier than the M-16 and Steyr Augs which I have had the oppotunity to handle.

The A2 is said to be a massively improved weapon. I will be firing one in April so I will fill you all in then.

[MrMilli 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Feb. 07 2003,04:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">H&K took the contract to "improve" the SA-80.

From what I understand, there are still inherent problems with it though.

I do not believe there are any civillian registered ones in the U.S. though (if so, they are very rare)...So, I have not had the opportunity to fire one.<span id='postcolor'>

already been done.

The A2 is the result.

There is a nice little production line, where A1's go in and A2's come out.

at least 10,000 A1's have already been converted to A2's at the last press release involving the A2, but the chances are that number is a lot, lot higher now.

The reported problems in afghanistan is, to be blunt, crap.

The story was pressed by the sun, whose previous press revelations have involved such gems as "man shags sheep"

I have also heard that only three registered SA80's are in the US, so your not likely to in the near future

Spent magazines

my unqualified opinion is they are chucked down your smock

Definately, if you can help it, not put back in the webbing.

They aren't left, because you do have to account for them and you sign off saying you've had em and you have to sign off you've given them back.

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Feb. 06 2003,21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STGN @ Feb. 06 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Feb. 06 2003,19:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I played with the c7 (on ofp) and I just loved it. Me likes the elcan sight very much.  

I just have a thing for optical sights...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(Paras, R. Marines, SAS, I forget which) chose the C7 over the M-16 line from Colt because the C7 was built better and jammed less.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought they used SA80? Maybe you got mixed up with Dutch forces? Cuz they use em. British paras look a bit like our 11th airmobile brigade, and our marines work extensively with british ones. Maybe I'm wrong...  <span id='postcolor'>

well not every soldier has a C7 as fare as I know but they are in youse prob. because they are lighter and a little more accurate than SA-80 on long ranges. plus it aint a bullpup design.

STGN<span id='postcolor'>

The SA80 is more accurate than the M-16 series because of its longer heavier barrel.

The SAS use the M-16 series and some Para and Marine groups because they are considered more reliable and the safety catch and other working parts don't make as much noise.<span id='postcolor'>

518 mm barrel on the SA80 510 mm on the M16 your right but it aint much.

STGN

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Feb. 07 2003,14:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Feb. 07 2003,04:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">H&K took the contract to "improve" the SA-80.

From what I understand, there are still inherent problems with it though.

I do not believe there are any civillian registered ones in the U.S. though (if so, they are very rare)...So, I have not had the opportunity to fire one.<span id='postcolor'>

already been done.

The A2 is the result.

There is a nice little production line, where A1's go in and A2's come out.

at least 10,000 A1's have already been converted to A2's at the last press release involving the A2, but the chances are that number is a lot, lot higher now.

The reported problems in afghanistan is, to be blunt, crap.

The story was pressed by the sun, whose previous press revelations have involved such gems as "man shags sheep"

I have also heard that only three registered SA80's are in the US, so your not likely to in the near future

Spent magazines

my unqualified opinion is they are chucked down your smock

Definately, if you can help it, not put back in the webbing.

They aren't left, because you do have to account for them and you sign off saying you've had em and you have to sign off you've given them back.<span id='postcolor'>

Spent magazines return to you webbing.

[VXR 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Feb. 05 2003,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Differences:

Fullauto instead of burst

Built by Diemaco

Different looking mag

I think it has a slower rate of fire

Made in Canada <span id='postcolor'>

it also has burst, i fired with some C7 Diemaco's they got single shot, burst and full auto.

[stgn 39]

I think that you are mixing the models because as fare as I know there can't be more than 3 fire mods on a M16 family gun.

STGN

[Mister Frag 0]

Nope, it's possible to have three fire modes and SAFE on the M-16. Even the US has a few weapons set up that way.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it also has burst, i fired with some C7 Diemaco's they got single shot, burst and full auto.

<span id='postcolor'>

Which addon was it?

There is no 3 round burst on the real C7 or C7A1, well, unless you time your finger properly.  

[-TU--33ker 0]

maybe the dutch forces have C7 with burst mode? Vixer is from the netherlands, isn't he?

[mr. Duck 0]

He fired a C7 and according to this and this site, the C7 has a burst and semi mode, while the C7A1 can fire in semi or auto.

Yes it's in dutch but notice the words brush  (salvo's van 3 schoten= three shots) in the second site. Go to uitrusting and click on C7.

For the first site:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">De C7 vuurt wel 3-round bursts<span id='postcolor'>

Translated; The C7 do fires 3 round burst.

Just scroll down a bit

[110 0]

The real difference between the C7/C8 and the M16/M4 is the barrel. The contract barrels used for the canadian rifles are of higher quality. I have'nt seen any tests myself so i can only go by what i've been told. Colt only cuts their lan one at a time. I dont know about FN or Bushmaster. I put an Olympic arms barrel on my Colt "M4gery" they cut their lans all at the same time. The Canadian barrels are also match grade. Probably hammer forged like the HK barrels. Im not sure how Colt barrels are forged, but my cheaper Oly barrel seems to be more accurate. This is the only quality difference lead i have. If any Canadian know of a website with accuracy tests, please post a link for curiosity's sake. Not like i'd be able to buy a Diemaco barrel anyway unless they can export parts here to the US; not that it would matter since the AR-15 parts market is flooded with Match grade barrels capable of similiar accuracy.

A heavy barrel itself does not make a weapon more accuate per say. The heavy barrel helps in that it takes longer to heat up. I'd prefer to flute the barrel and have more surface area for cooling off wich is what i intend to do to a match grade heavy barrel i have. KKF does excellent barrel work. Kurt Wala is the man!!

As to the selector istelf, this has nothing to do with the quality of a weapon. It only an option that could be installed in any Armalite Rifle type.

The M4 manufactured by Colt differs from previous Armalite variants by having a better throated feed ramp. I guess the C8 has this feature too. Since Diemaco is the only manufacturer for Canada service rifle their being more reliable doesn't surprise. Not that modern Colts jam. Kind of like a Computer. OEM parts will work better together then a Mutt. Even though the AR series of weapon is suppossed to be Modular. It still helps to have the full suit so to speak.-Why my next computer will be all DELL (except mouse and graphics card) instead of a Mutt. Mutt computers tend to have more "issues".

The primary reason why the early M16s had so much trouble was due to:

1: change in gunpowder. I think the original design was for stick powder, but the US govt switched to ball(?) powder during Vietnam. The AR-type was not desined to initially use this powder.

2. .223rem spec chambers vs 5.56mm spec chambers. The early Colts had chambers that were too tight for full-auto fire. This led to more weapon jams then perhaps anything else in the M16's early life. 5.56mm chambers are more roomy and can handle carbon build-up better then the .223 spec.

3. Soldiers were not issued 5.56mm cleaning supplies during its initial issue.

4. Bad ammo. Some of the early 5.56mm ammo was faulty and caused "Kaboom" in the rifles. Blowing out the mag well, mag and damaging the chamber, barrel and upper reciever as well.

I own a batch of Canadian Thermolds. They are a good reliable mag. I like them alot. I've heard them nick-named "thermelts" buy Canadians. Due the the feed lips melting thanks to full-auto fireing-something i guess i dont have to worry about The SA-80 mags are also nice. very similiar to USGI mags, but sturdier and heavier.

The HK'd SA-80 should be better then previous issue, but i think it still falls under the "you can polish a turd, but its still a turd". I think Britain would have been better off with the Diemaco or the AUG. Or even better still the G36.

[110 0]

sorry for bad grammer and typos. its getting late.