1  2  3  Next

For those who don't know what I'm talking about here's a link: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c7a2.htm

I'm just curious, since most of the comments I heard were positive, except for the heaviness once the sighting peripherals and the laser are fitted. My friend is in training with the "vandooze" for Afghanistan and said he likes the new butt wich gives more flexibility for urban warfare but can't understand why we are still using the Elcan Scope. Anyway, I can't wait to try it myself.

   

Looks like a hotrodded M16/AR15.

Hopefully, more reliable than the 16/15.

   

Well basicaly,

The C7 is a M16 with some modifications to allow us shooting while wearing winter mittens. But there's no major changes here it's a m16 with an Elcan Scopes ( wich I hate with a fierce passion ).

   

If you want to talk about CDN Army.... at a core level, try www.army.ca

   

Thanks for the link, even if I'm not a member of their forum I take a look often.

   

I'd imagine the C7a2 is pretty much the M16A2...

Why don't they go for one of these

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as75-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

   

Can't say I've tried it. But it does look alot like a mix between the C7 and the C8. It's the butt stock of the C8 with the forestock of the C7. Doesn't make much sense to me because(and correct me if I'm wrong on this) can't both the C8 and the C7 have the M203A1 grenade launcher mounted on them?

   

I've used it. Not worth talking about, I can tell you that much.

   

Folks it's just a tool, nothing more and nothing less. Instead of worrying about what something looks like the average Canadian soldier should worry about his performance on the range with his weapon. 23 years in and the level of shooting in our younger troops, on average, is absolutely pathetic. It's these troops who will find blame with the weapon, instead of looking in the mirror at the real culprit.

The weapon is fine, for those who know how to shoot. For those who dont, it doesn't matter.

   

The first one we already have a few prototype C8CQBs in service, which are very similar.

The second one I don't know, probably too expensive to mass produce.

The third one is nothing special, just normal rifle with fancy furniture.

Nate.

   

I thought the one prevailing opinion about our troops is their extremely high level of training. Bart even remarked that many US regular soldiers would have had a hard time with our training programs.

   

Thanks for the link Damien.

   

The first one isn't all that different on the outside, but the internal workings of the weapon are supposed to have fixed all the major problems with the m16 design.

The second one could be more expensive (not sure) but is designed so the troops can use the ammunition of the enemy.

The third is lighter then the m16, and doesn't have the jamming problems to my knowledge, or at least not to the same severity.

   

Good point.
My sergeant used to tell me that the standart of today ( shooting skills ) are way easier than it used to be 20 years ago.

   

Derby, overall the training is amongst some of the best in the world. Our soldiers for the most part are extremely resourceful, professional, and intelligent. It's just that our marksmanship, for most not all, is absolutely pathetic.

Our weapons test is laughable, and still more than enough cannot pass it. I set up a range on my property, and taught my wife and kids proper weapons handling, coached them for about an hour, and they PASSED. An incredible number of our troops don't consider marksmanship to be that important, thus they don't put in the effort on the range because their buddy who is doing the scoring will ensure that he passes. It seems to be one of the forces dirty little secrets.

If we were to tie marksmanship into career progression and honestly mark scores we would see some improvement. Just an idea I had.

   

1  2  3  Next