I find it absolutely fascinating to hear how Colt made almost the worst possible decision every time they were given the opportunity too. They had so much money coming in, all they had to do was make good decisions. NOPE!
Very informative (as always). As a former Canadian infantryman (35 yrs) I appreciate the love shown us when we get something right. Diemaco C7s, C8s were chosen to arm the Dutch, Danish and SAS (Diemaco Commando). I joined in 83 and lived through the whole evolution from FN C1 A1 to C7 to C7 A1 to the C7 A2 that I was issued in during 2 deployments to Afghanistan.
@@SmallArmsSolutions When the A1s came in, I remember hefting one the first time and thinking (with the slightly thicker C1 brl and the addition of the C79 scope) "hmm. Seems almost as heavy as our C1 (FAL) now..." I was working alongside the guys implementing the SARP in the Infantry School (disclosure, I was a 19 yr old officer cadet in 1984 - so, next to useless). I expressed interest in the C8 and was told by the WO working on things that it was strictly for armoured crews and that we in the infantry would never ever see them... except after they'd been around for a while and more senior officers would find a way to get them so as to look cool. Well, there were a hell of a lot of C8 A2s being used by the infantry in Afg. Being a staff offr, I didn't rate one. Fair enough. We put so much extra 'stuff' on them they wound up fairly heavy as well (like the US M4).
@@lib556you're not wrong about the weight difference; While doing musuem work for my unit, i found an old FN C1 pam and it described how much the rifle weighed. The exact text was "about 10 lbs" when fully loaded with a 20 round magazine. Flash forward to the most current C7A2 pam. The weight described for a fully loaded rifle with the C79A2 optic is 4.58kg Which comes to 10 lbs. Yeah, the weight advantage when the C7 was adopted just up and left LMAO
@@burnyburnoutze2nd I didn't have to look it up, I lugged the C1 though my first 5 yrs in the army. I also marched and carried it on ex in the previous 5 yrs as an army cadet (back when we always had rifles/blanks etc on ex and always carried them on parade... ah, the good old days). Plus, I own 2 x FALs (not C1s, unfortunately).
I've always loved the simplicity of the C7 compared to the M16a4. The Canadians figured out how to give troops optics and attachments without the massive weight and cost of a quad rail.
Many don’t realize the C7 is not a TDP Colt. Many manufacturing and conceptual changes. Better thought out and far more realistic and not as expensive.
One of the few places on the web to find first source and historically accurate information about these firearms. Thanks for your continued contributions, Chris!
I just subscribed to your patreon and the information on this one video was worth every penny..Why you don't have 10 times the subscribers is beyond me.. Great content!
The M5 rails aren’t putting that much heat into rail let alone the receiver. The M5 stiffens the barrel. The M4A1 top and side Lug were/are breaking from suppressor use while taking on the most force because they’re by the extractor. If it was bending enough to break lugs it’d be bending enough to cause cracking before that lug breaking point.
You might enjoy the Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS) M16S1, and the history/characteristics of various M16s (and "AR15" - military full auto AR15 rifles and LMGs) in Singapore! They had slightly different features to most M16s and M16A1s, and were the main service rifle for teeth units from 1968 until the early 2000s.
i was an USMC Infantryman ( 0311-0369) and went through the changes.and carried the A2, A4, and M4 .lol was a pain.. 94-2014 .. we changed a lot of them.. i like your theoreies and they make sense. awesome videos, as always! soo true about the 500 meter..lmao
So cool to get all these historical facts. I am currently working with the C7 in aktiv service, and even though it is old, it is still one strong workhorse.
15:36 that green furniture is really cool, I prefer the full rifle stock (and an Otis cleaning kit designed to fit in it) (Unrelated to video after this) and adding an aftermarket Magpul grip to hold extra lube/batteries/Skittles or whatever, but sometimes I put the A2 grips back on for my A4 clone Still, if that green furniture was in my price range, I'd snag it instantly.. maybe I'll find n buy a Magpul rifle length grip to dip/paint/whatever and make it green n add mlok
I tend to subscribe to a channel when I’m looking something up and the same channel will show up with the information, you sir have answered all my question on the m16a1,a2,xm16, and the c7 you deserve much more subscribers
finished my C7A2 all Canadian Parts less the lower (fully marked Canadian) and the Colt Hbar barrel , had the upper cut to 14 rails and scalloped edges.. almost done my C8 and L119A1 now
The carry handle with the A1 sight is 178 dollars on Brownells. I don't care how good the A1 sight is supposed to be. A NcStar or Aero detachable that's 40 to 90 is more approachable
I've spent way too many hours of my life looking for a Diemaco "CS" fixed stock to no avail. A2 material/aesthetic with A1 length of pull, which is perfect imho.
Unless you're looking for 100% authenticity, I think PSA has a new A1 stock that may fit the bill. It even has a foam core. They have been selling it as part of either the H&R retro line, or for the sabre line. (I have also spent some time looking for a facsimile of a CS stock. Settled on one of those hollow A1 stocks. Not sure if I want to swap to the PSA one)
For the longest time I always thought “why did it take so long for the 1913 rail to become standardized? It’s been around forever and so many guns just ignored it?” I thought it was invented in 1913….
Great video! I would also like to see you do a review or at least a q&a on the commercial Cold M4a1 carbines out on the market. One thing about this video, my understanding is that the Marines used the Knights Armament BUIS instead of the Match on the M16a4 rifles.
The development of the A2 sighting system wasn't all that necessary for practical purposes, but nor was it a real issue outside of theoretical. Never hurt anyone. It still had a battle zero and allowed the tradition, stigma of marksmanship fundamentals be kept in the modern era.
Stoner was told the M1 Garand rear sight was magnificent, but was a terrible combat sight because nervous soldiers will fidget and turn knobs under stress..This is why they rejected Stoners original adj rear sight..They didn't want a rifle that could have its zero easily changed.They wanted it to be deliberate..Makes sense..
You are correct. The Army wanted a simple battle sight for appropriate ranges. That was very different from the Garand and M14. Up to 300 yards not 500 to 1K yards.
The most practical original configuration Colt carbine was the 605, but it needed gas system tweaking. Mine has never skipped a beat, and it has RLGS but slightly-longer barrel. I've shot it in the cold at 6300ft elevation without any malfs. It has an original pre-'63 Colt slick chrome bolt carrier, Type D stock, no later than 1972 handguards, and a hybrid phenolic resin mottled texture pistol grip.
Thanks for the video! I’ve been on an M16 kick. Just finished building a slick side Air Force clone, and A1 clone. Both of those rifles make me go ah ha, this is what the M16 was meant to be. After owning just an A4 for so long, I started to think they were crazy for putting the M16 up against the AK47 in the jungle. The A1 feels 3 times more “assaulty” 😂 and lightweight/faster transitions. Doesn’t feel like a 20” barrel.
I liked the carry handle/acog combo as i can switch to the irons without detaching acog, also the raised optic was more comfortable. Only complaint was the raised optic was a little more uncomfortable in the prone position.
Yeah funny how things went from mounting optics on carry handle, to get it down almsot as low as possible to now back to deliberately mounting things high lol.
Always good when SAS drops a history lesson on his channel. I geek out with all the details. Thanks Chris for all you do. As a young man i swore i would never own an AR bcuz of friends stories how they would jam up in combat (Vietnam era soldiers). Once i found out why i changed my story. I love the platform for so many reasons now. I always wanted an M14 (M1a) but after watching your dislike i went to the ar10 platform. Eugene Stoner was a genius and i know why now.
I am looking into it. There is a dimension that is 19mm but it’s not a width or depth. I got a friend who is a model maker who I am having look at the drawing. I would have thought it would have been an overall length. We shall see. I have never seen an official explanation for what it means.
You may be right. I am trying to see if there is anywhere to verify. I have yet to see an official word. There is still false info out there on the origin of the rail. That is a disservice to the man who standardized the dimensions and cheating out of his rightful place in history of this platform.
I like the simplicity of the M16 rear sight. The A2 sight has a lot more capability but I have never found a need for it unless I'm going to shoot at Gomers who are over 500 meters away. I freely admit I have trouble judging such distances and distinguishing friend from foe. Thanks to modern optics, the A2 sight is not a necessary or desirable feature. As an aside, after 911 I became tangentially involved in an ongoing effort to upgrade the USAF inventory of M16 rifles with A2 kits. As far as I know we only did these conversions on our rifles, not on our GUU-5/P 14" carbines. We kept the M16 lowers, though I don't recall if we added the burst fire trigger kits (I hope not). We did supplement the GUU-5/P carbines with a large purchase of M4 carbines. We lacked the resources and time to convert enough M16s and acquire enough M4s to arm every Airman with one, so many deployed with an unaltered M16 or GUU-5/P. According to my notes the Navy made no upgrades to their M16A1 inventory at this time (circa 2004) and deployed with them as is. The problem was the Army was responsible for all small arms ammunition delivered and distributed in theater, which meant our Airmen (and presumably sailors) were being issued M855 instead of M193. I think it took us a year or more to sort out this mess.
FYI 20 years in the Canadian Army (infantry) I never once saw the detachable carrying handle. Only the backup iron sights (and C79 optic of course, as well as the odd EOTech).
A lot of people rag on the A2 rear sight but i don't think the warfighters capability was at all diminished by it. I understand Stoners feelings on it but i just don't think it's a big deal. The most egregious thing done to the M16 was the government profile barrel and 3 round burst and to a lesser extent the A2 stock. The rear sight was far from a horrible mistake
The A2 sight is not practical. We BZO and that was it. It is expensive and really only useful on the Marine known distance qualification ranges. The original sight was what the Army asked for. Stoner offered the elevation in the rear like he had on the AR10. The Army said no. The Army required the detent drum rear sight instead of a knob. The army got what they asked for.
The US is a large number military, with a lot of commitment with existing inventory, and Canada is a small, agile military, and can afford to reequip their military with new equipment more rapidly I’m sure the US military knew about these improvements beforehand. They just wasn’t funding for logistics trading at the time.
The US military is often behind the 8 ball on small arms. Always behind many other countries. Canada just cut out all the red tape that it takes to get anything done unlike the US.
What do you mean ? Canada held on to the same FN Fal for 35 years till 1990 when they introduced their own C7/C8.. In the same periode the US army used the M14 from 1957, switching to M16a1 in the 60s and upgrading to M16a2 and then the M4 in 1994. The US armed forces are much bigger and there are more units (army, usmc, socom) to introduce new weapons imo. They definitely wage more war theatres with their specific needs of arms..
Just curious: where has it been reported that the KAC M5, when hot, transfers enough heat to the upper causing misalignment of the barrel/barrel extension? Also, what law prohibits the importation of the mentioned barrels? Thanks.
That is well known mechanics. Aluminum draws heat from the handguard cap and it goes back into the receiver. One of the major benefits of free float barrel outside accuracy. We are talking about the M5 and M4 RAS, not the free float URK
@@SmallArmsSolutions I have never heard of any discussion of this nor seen any formal report. Could you please provide a source/report? I am very curious. Especially considering that the M5 RAS mates with the barrel nut and delta ring...Not directly to the receiver - just like most every free float system. I mean I can definitely see how heat can transfer from the handguard cap to the rail (which, yes, would not occur with a free flat), but enough to heat the upper receiver? I don't know. Also, what about the transfer of heat from the barrel extension which is mated to the upper receiver directly?
I feel like at least some of these situations where we think that a smaller, less resourced country like Canada did something more efficiently or effectively than the US can potentially be attributed to resources or something like that. Places like Canada essentially have guard rails or limitations imposed on them due to resources and that can help streamline or rationalize things. They only have so mamy choices they can make. The fact that the US often has so many resources or big ideas and aspirations is almost a curse as much as a blessing.
I do not believe this to be the case. There are so many layers of bureaucracy in the US military. To many people who have to sign off. Many of which have to be convinced any change has to be a significant leap of improvement. Canada does not have that. If Diemaco/Colt Canada go to the Canadian army and say we have an improved spring or improved process, the Canadian military signs right off, they listen to the manufacturer. It to colt more than I think 10 years to get Rock Island/Picitinny to approve the brass M4 extractor spring for use with the M16A2/A4. The M9 pistol, there was a new locking block that increased the life cycle nearly 10K rounds. The Army would not approve it. But when the Marines got the COTS M9A1, they got all the new updated components. This is my take. Progress is halted by bureaucracy.
@@SmallArmsSolutionsthe American armed forces has the same sort of curse when it comes to bureaucracy as our Russian and Soviet friends had. Kinda crazy how 2 different nations politically, suffered from the same nepotism and stagnation militarily.
Agree, that is what kept bot nations behind their allies in weapons technology. Russia is even worse than the US. In 2023, they are still using WW2 small arms lacking. Capabilities of range, accuracy, optics and force multipliers like lights and lasers.
Interesting I had a home defense semi-auto 12ga Shotgun with a Weaver rail, I never even heard of it till then. Do you have any thoughts on the Windham Weaponry factory closing this year?
It was very sad they closed. They had severe financial problems they just could not get out of. I think after Richard Dyke passed is when things went south
I believe this is just them clearing inventory. No complete weapons and no options like before on uppers nor parts. My guess is this is what was left over after the auctions.
This will come as a complete shock to you, but in my experience, a significant number of CAF members (especially Mcpl and below) these days do not know how to properly mount the BUIS like you demonstrated here, or in some cases how to use/zero irons at all. Our current pam literally instructs soldiers to mount the sight via "the sloped angle towards the target with the correct eye relief". If those instructions are followed, the sight is mounted backwards. This can be seen nearly constantly in most publically available CAF social media account posts featuring the BUIS. Many mounting them on the wrong portions of the rail (mid way, 2/3rds etc). The irony is the publically available Colt Canada manuals do show how to mount the BUIS properly, and not the CAF exclusive pams. Also, it is possible to use the BUIS all the way forward, but only with the large aperture and only in CQB situations. It allows the sights to be aligned significantly quicker and with less effort vs the standard all the way to the rear, at least from my messing around with it. Obviously, all the way to the rear is preffered, but I figured that out when messing around with my own Diemaco rear sight and noticed that difference. Also I am 100% going to clip the portion where you demonstrate how to properly mount the BUIS and show it to my fellow soldiers, and if they question why they should listen to you, I'll just show them the copy of black rifle vol. 2 we have in our unit museum reference library with the C7 section open.
The Canadian made their flat top lower than the US M4 flat top. They kept the standard height front sight. Their rifles will shoot low, but to the same POI (point of impact) of the carry-handle-M16. The U.S. "F" marked front sight is taller than the standard front sight. The rifle will shoot lower. See? Both Canadian and American changes converge here - to make the flat-top-rifle shoot low to the same POI (point of impact) of the carry-handle-M16.
Um, no they made hit sit higher so they did not have to use a taller front tight base to align the rear BUIS or the carrying handle and kept the same from sight post as the original C7
@@SmallArmsSolutions A taller front sight (F marked front sight) will make the rifle shoot lower. If you want the rifle to shoot low, you can either raise the front sight (F marked as did American) or lower the rear sight.
Thanks! I thought they might have had an “A1” style rifle, but with case deflector, unlike the U.S., but a quick read seems to show they used the C1 (FAL) until going to the C7. @@SmallArmsSolutions
Canadians for the most part built the models the Army used. Unlike Colt who had models for everything. Colt would have military customers who chose configuration Colt would build to. If you were to look at Colts model list compared to Diemaco/Colt Canada you would be shocked at how much fewer models Diemaco/Colt Canada has.
Great information! It never surprises me on how bad the U.S. government creates red tape to slow the process down for small arms or anything. I don't know why unless it's a lot of power plays and money.
It’s designed as a backup, not primary. It serves its purpose quite well. The DD one is a non folding fixed position sight. Different animal. The DD is made of aluminum, not lightweight polymer.
Hint- look around for L119 airsoft handle from a Canada or UK airsoft store. Some are better copies of the original than others. Same also for a budget tri-rail.
It was a KAC rifle that replaced the L119A1/A2. Probably 3x the cost to purchase an 10x the cost to maintain. Colt Canada’s biggest set back was never developing Ambi controls.
I think adding functionality to the sight serves a valuable purpose. I like the A1 sights, but the A2 sights are perfect. The US has always taken target rifles to war, the A2 is no exception. By saying that soldiers can't be trusted to use the functionality or than they aren't trained to handle it is either pathetic or insulting to the professional soldiers. I like the idea of set and forget BZO, but more functionality that doesn't impede you is never a bad thing. Peak uppers are Mk18 flat tops with the chopped A2 rear sight and you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise.
Target sights are not practical for combat. It’s an addiction $80 per rifle for something most will never use except on a Marine target range. No other country on modern rifles used this type of system because 300 meters is the farthest you can really effectively engage a human target with iron sights. It’s not about impeding, it’s about what is practical and most effective. Keep in mind, it was the Army who required the A1 rear sight without a knob so it could not be easily changed. The made it with the lowest common denominator in mind. Not insulting at all. Give them what is practical. Keep in mind what SOCOM did, they got rid of that A2 sight very early on to folding backup sights which removed the elevation capability.
@@SmallArmsSolutions this really only applies to rifles prior to the widespread use of optics, but on rifles only using iron sights I believe the A2 sight system is superior. Given the ubiquitous nature of optics that really changes the equation from what sight system is the most functional on its own, to useable without being in the way. A simple flip up with minimal adjustment like the A1 sight is perfect for being out of the way with 0 chance of losing that zero as a much more desirable feature. When you're talking the A2 sight system, for a rifle with only iron sights, it's better on the range for training marksmen *and* loses nothing for a combat rifle. Quickly changing the range with the elevation drum is what I see as the key advantage. A clear denotation of the range your rifle is set to while also being much simpler to achieve a basic BZO rather than the 400 yard zero with a low hold at closer ranges (an excellent use of fixed sights with proper training that i quite like in theory but requires a lot more training for the lowest common denominator than a sight with elevation adjustment). I know some sights used on earlier carbines had the short and long range sights on the rear L to mitigate the need for the elevation change function, and I think that's the best compromise while maintaining the light weight and slim profile of the A1, but the functionality of zeroing the rifle for 100 and changing the elevation with the drum actually appeals quite a bit for lowest common denominator with only basic range training. Every Marine not only learns the basics in boot camp, but at least when I went through, teaching range estimation and training on an unknown distance range, the A2 sight was perfect (though the RCO was a far better piece of kit for range estimation and not worrying about what distance your zero is set at). Trust me, some of the guys I went through with were pretty low denominators, but with training, the features at least could be understood enough to be leveraged by those guys rather than them being a hindrance. Again, that goes right out the window when the RCO came into play, they don't even teach the use of iron sights in boot camp anymore, and they only issue backup sights to the guys that can be expected to need them, who no question of competence at shooting will ever be asked of. Backup sights are best when they're out of the way and the A2 sight will never be that. At that point, the added cost for a backup sighting system is a much more reasonable argument. The A2 is definitely not that intricate ladder sight on the thompson. It is a valuable function worth the added cost when you're talking about your *primary* sighting system, that's the real point I was trying to make. Likely it also comes into play with the fact that the first AR I ever built used the A2 upper. I learned to shoot on my Dad's CAR-15 with the A1 sight but did most of my shooting on mine with the A2, then trained on the M16A4 with the removable A2 sight when I joined; so i do have a strong bias for the sight that comes from using it as a civilian and as a Marine at many ranges.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond. I do agree, the Canadian C7s did a much better job of applying KISS than the A4. Having just watched your old vid on your ideal service rifle, I think a few of your points here definitely show through on that old build.
The original rifles were designed and adopted with the carrying handle. Once the flat top came out they requested the detachable carrying handle. The more optics were used, the back up sight replaced the detachable carrying handle.
Sigh…Col. David Lutz developed the M16A2 to be the best combat service rifle for the time. It had absolutely zero input from the rifle teams. It actually had more design input from the army.
No, the Army had no input on the development. Lutz came up with requirements, colt engineers executed it. Read BR2. Whole chapter. Also a video on M16A2 development. I completely believe the Canadians had a far better approach than the M16A2. That rifle has Marine Rifleman all around it. It was designed for known range targets with target not combat sights. The 5-800 meters were for area, not human targets. You can’t see a human that far and if you did the front sight post would cover it so you had no point of aim. The C7 was much better thought out for a combat rifle. The sights on the A2 were for target shooting on Marine known distance targets. Not Practical field sights and not that burst crap. Proper stock length. The A2 was very difficult to use with body armor. Everyone seems to forget the designers. Check out all the patens on the A2. But make no mistake, the A2 specs came from marines solely. Army adopted by default without making the changes they knew they should have. Army infantry does not shot past 300 meters. No bullseye or known distance targets. Enemy troops dont wear bullseye
I wish canadian citizens could have semi-auto replicas. We are allowed to have other semi-auto's chambered in 5.56 with shorter barrels. No reason law abiding citizens can't enjoy a piece of history to go with our lee-enfields
I hate to be a the bearer of bad news, but if our communist dictator Justine Castreau (AKA Justin Trudeau) stays in power much longer, he will be prohibiting ALL semi auto center fires and not just AR15s. He tried to add it to bill C21 earlier this year, but had to withdraw the amendment. A new order is council is sure to follow soon. BTW I happen to own a Diemaco SA20 which is the semi auto version of the C7 - what a beauty of a rifle - too bad it is soon to be confiscated unless we get a new government.
Hello, what is the barrel life of M16A2/A4 and Diemaco C7A1? I have seen data about the life of M16A2 and A4 in 6000,10000,15000 rounds and the life of C7 barrels in 30000, but I do not know if this data is correct, especially confuses the life of barrels 6000.
6k is the minimum stat card by the US govt. It has several variables. Normal limited full auto is easily 10 to 15K. The hammer forge will get you around 20K. It’s very hard to say due to the variables. But 6k is mil spec. The rifles exceed 2 to 3x
@@SmallArmsSolutions Thanks!In this case we are talking about standard barrels for M16A2 and A4, as far as I know M4A1 or M27 IAR barrels have longer barrel life, but their barrels are more expensive and of higher quality. I have heard that 6000 is milspec, but sometimes it is given as barrel life. Another strange thing was at Australian tests, some M16A2s showed 5000 barrel life, but it is not clear whether the rifles were already used, not new, or whether the barrels were of low quality (I heard Colt had quality problems).
They stuck with the profile i imagine to keep the weight down like why the US never used heavy barrels. But the totally redid the manufacturing process. For all intents and purposes, the C7 and the M16A2 barrels are quite different.
Dick was an interesting individual. He did not like females working, to say the least. One of the most miserable people I've ever met. I'm from Bridgewater, and Arms Inc was in the next two over. Jobs were few and far between, so for a girl being a receptionist for arms was kind of a big deal.... But NONE lasted more than a few months because Mr Swan was so caustic and rude. While I was dropping off lunch to a former girlfriend I distinctly remember him saying, "Oh, you're here for Jenn. Well if she doesn't grow some t!ts, she's gone! What's the point of hiring a useless woman if you can't look at them?"... that was 96-97. Stacy, his longest receptionist, was there from 2006 until his death. I'm not sure if you dealt with her at any point, but she was good people. Arms Inc never sold a thing over the counter... Just to get in to the tiny stone building, you had to be buzzed in, and you'd better have an appointment. What a grumpy dude. Just miserable and wanted to spread that misery to any and everyone. Great products, and I get that geniuses work in different ways... But he was an certified a$$hole. He will not be missed.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I hear that Einstein insisted on his shoes being tied for him... So the crazy genius thing makes for some abrasive social conduct. It happens. I do not judge the art on the artist. Excellent video by the way... The fact that Colt Canada essentially created the individual battle optic idea for such a great firearm needs to be acknowledged. Arms, LWRC, Knights, Daniels, all private businesses that actually care about the rifle and the individuals holding it in combat. My hat is off to your dedication. I apologize if I came off as trying to diminish Arms. The dude was a creep.... Whatever, he still pioneered and fully contributed to the standard setting modularity of the M4/M16A4 system up to and including all generations of the sopmod upgrades. Sure, he didn't make the best stuff, but he laid the foundation for others to make the best stuff. Innovative, crusty brilliant genius. I hope your doing well, I know that leaves and berries won't replace a steak... But we're all with you brother. H-minus. All the way.
Those of us who were close to him called him Uncle Dick. If he was your friend he was the greatest guy but if you were not, god help you. His personality was very abrasive and he made sure you knew he was wealthy. He viciously defended his patents. He made more on paten infringement settlements than he ever did in product. But regardless of his personality, he was a significant contributor to the US SOCOM as well as many foreign governments. He deserves his place in history for his contributions.
@@SmallArmsSolutions 😂 Completely understand. Then I, a pimpled teen, nor the majority of his employees were his friend. He was as cuddly as a porcupine engulfed in flames. The utmost polite respect was greeted with a scowl that'd make Ebenezer Scrooge stagger in awe. Again, the art. Not the artist.
Chris, b/c of your research I've stopped using the term "pic rail" and exclusively use "1913 rail". Also, it doesn't surprise me that Colt made the decisions and route they took on designs and re-designs. Its always all about $$$$... Also, I thought CAFs had it right w/the C7A2. When I was in Afghanistan, I worked a lot w/the Canadians and to take a closer look at their C7A2s. The telescopic stock paired w/the 20" was brilliant!!!
Hey Carrey! AIM LOW! I believe in using proper terms no matter how much it goes against public opinion. In court, a forensic firearms examiner is expected to use proper terminology. I carry that to everything I do
I 100% agree. I've built a near clone M16A4 with the RCO ACOG, KAC RAS rail and with the weapon light and vertical grip, it is unnecessarily heavy for a general purpose rifle. It shows the intelligence levels of the Marine Corps Generals who handled the M4 back in the late 1990s/early 2000s and said to themselves "Naaa, the M4 sucks".
I had a brand new out of the box C7 in Kuwait City in March '90. A young US soldier in a slick uniform asked if it was an M16A2. I said, no. Better. I unloaded and passed it to him. We still had Thermold mags as issued, but I had some USGI Vietnam age metal mags through my father in Canada. Jump ahead to '02-03 I had a C7A1 issued to me in Bosnia. With the exception of the bayonet itself, every other piece of equipment had changed over to something better than in the Gulf. In '07-08 I carried a C7A2 in Afghanistan. An even better rifle IMHO.
The curse of being an early adopter. Cutting edge for five years and then when it's time to upgrade in ten there's not any money left to replace the old janky thing that has since been outclassed.
Definitely some features that put the C7's ahead of their American contemporaries. I also like that they stuck with the 20" barrel for standard issue with the C7A2's. Neutering the 5.56 with 14.5" barrels caused a lot of of the issues we had with effect on target in Afghanistan. The most astonishing thing in this video to me was that the Army never trained you on hiw to use A2 sights. That is a major failure. The A2 sights are very effective combat sights. They are simple to operate, and give you the capability to effectivly put rounds on target out to 500m. They also have 2 rear apertures: a "combat" (wider field of view) aperture for shooting CQB up to 100m, and a "precision" aperture for shooting outside of 100m. It's a shame that they failed to train their personnel on the system, I could easily teach a group of people to use them in under an hour. Leave them set at 3/6 small gap on the combat aperture, and you are set for any ambush or close in enemies. If you have to engage someone farther out, flip your aperture, dial you range, put rounds on target. That easy. Far better system than the A1 setup. Thanks for the video. 👍🏼
If you are shooting at area targets perhaps. Human targets I think that’s a far stretch for most soldiers to see let alone engage. I think it is a target, not a combat sight. But that’s my opinion. Canadians agreed.
14.5" has plenty of velocity. The differences are so small as to be meaningless. M855 20" 3050fps 14.5" 2920fps Once we went to the M4/M4A1 in the 1990s, we never looked back. Iron sights are a non-starter nowadays, other than 4th tier back-ups. You can't PID targets at 300yds, let alone 500 using irons/naked eye. You need optics. We drug our feet in adopting optics on rifles and carbines in the US. JSOC drove that train and it finally trickled down, primarily through Ranger Regiment, and then the JRDF Combat Divisions.
@@LRRPFco52 oh I'm not arguing for irons over optics! 😆 When I got my RCO (ACOG in Corps speak), it domintated irons. I'm saying that A2 irons are better all around sights than the A1 irons. Within 200m 14.5" barrels are fine, and they are better for inside vehicles and clearing buildings. Past that, you didn't get reliable fragmentation from M855. 20" barrels would get reliable fragmentation out to around 400m. It's absolutely valid to put accurate fire on targets out too 500m. Even if (as you correctly point out) you can't easily spot individual targets at 500m with irons; a team leader could spot them with binos, a direct the fires of his team. Putting accurate fire on the enemy's position allows you to cover the movement of your other teams/squads to close with and destroy the enemy. It's not enough to just shoot in their direction to suppress, you need accurate fire. The A2 sights facilitated that, and the Marines used them to good effect.
@@usmcvet0313 How many times have we ever heard of a Rifle Squad Leader or Fire Team Leader ranging area targets, then commanding their guys to rotate their elevation drums to 400, 450, or 500m, and fire for effect though? It wasn't a thing in Panama or ODS that I've ever heard, let alone GWOT. ACOG sold itself all day long for Infantry. I'm not a big ACOG guy, but it was probably the best force multiplier that came along for line infantry units when looking at PID and increased hit probability. As to 14.5" vs 20" frag threshold, that bullet slows down really fast. 130fps difference at the muzzle will never equal 200yds difference in fragmentation behavior. The 20" will hit the 14.5" mv at ~40yds at sea level, 75yds at 6300ft above sea level. Assuming a consistent 2600fps frag threshold (which was never consistent with M855), 20" would give you just over 150yds. 14.5" would give you 115yds. It's why they went to Mk.318 SOST, Mk.262, Brown Tip 70gr TSX from Barnes, and M855A1. The frag threshold advantage from a 20" has been widely exaggerated. It's there, but just not worth all that length for a measley 35yds. I liked the M16A1 a lot, didn't care for the A2, and had to pinch myself when we turned in the muskets and drew out brand new M4s. Anytime I saw an A2 after that, I felt sorry for the kids who were issued them.
In the CAF, we had something called "The run down," where you would start at 400m, run to the 300m line, shoot, run to the 200m line, shoot, etc. The C79 optic was adjustable out to 800 in 100m increments. In theory, you would adjust your sights at every known distance line as you reached it. But when sucking wind, mangaing reloads (mags were loaded to very specific roundcounts) and trying to engage targets in a tight time limit, can you guess how many people would remember to? Pretty much nobody. Thankfully, the closer you get, the less your range adjustment mattered.
A full auto & semi automatic trigger is a much more accurate trigger than the stupid 3-round burst & semi auto that we had with the M16A2. Good job Canada.
really in-depth...funny how good ideas from Canada, from rifle parts to VTOL CL-84, are always "killed off" by USA politics and industry... the CL-84 was better than the UH-1 in almost every way, but, "not invented here"....one has to wonder at the cost in money and lives lost, when the USA spurns other sources of military design...original FAL, for instance, CF-105, CL-84...Z
The marines marksmanship has nothing to do with combat accuracy. You can see the disdain in me because there are people who don’t know the difference, You modify, increase cost to a rifle that nobody else uses. Those sights were designed for the Marine qualification known distance ranges. Not for combat. The M16 is a battle rifle not a camp Perry match rifle for guys who just shoot at known distance bullseyes. They ever were special shooting coats on the range and slings. Things you do NOT do in the field! Targets in combat also do not have bullseyes on them. So no, their marksmanship doctrine and combat use are two different things. The Canadians did get it right. It took a lot of years to unscrew the A2/M4. Finally got rid of that rear sight and the stupid burst mechanism. At least the SOCOM M4A1 corrected that other ridiculous heavy in the wrong spot barrel. I do find people’s inability to get from tradition to real world use annoying. It also amazes me no other country in the world puts that shit on the rifle sight. That tells you where the smallest branch of the US military training and traditions stand up against the rest of the world. Practical priorities. That sight cost the US Govt a lot of money over the years, especially when pretty much everyone battle sight zeroed their rifle and left their sights alone, same as they did the practical A1 rear sight. Don’t tell me, you think the US should go back to the 1911 to!
@@SmallArmsSolutions Geez, someone's angry! What an absolute meandering screed! Especially with that random aside about the burst mechanism, heavy barrel, and the 1911 pistol. Those are entirely separate issues on their own and it's foolish to assume I have any admiration for any of those things. To me, the constant moaning about the Marine Corps and their so-called 'target rifles' in so many of your videos reeks of typical "I was in the Army and those Marines aren't as cool as they think" pettiness. I find it super cringey and it always makes me roll my eyes when I'm trying to watch something mature and informative and we the audience have to stop and wait ten seconds as you vent your frustrations about the Marine Corps at every opportunity. Then again, you don't have to change your whole presentation style for my sake. I just find it incredibly annoying. Good day.
Maybe you should look at the practicality of the argument as to real world use. Part of my work is answered foreign military weapon replacement programs. Looking at what their requirements and designing weapon to fit. This particular issue at hand is contrary to every program I have been involved with and researched. Working for Colt, I know it cost the US government $80 for that rear sight that nobody other than one branch, the smallest customer in the DoD required. I am critical on weapons development and look at everything as objective and what’s in the best interest of the troops. So this is a big issues in misappropriation of funds as well as overcomplicating a sight that nobody used. Millions of dollars for a useless feature. Does that not bother you as a taxpayer? The A2 was a Marine design, designed around their tradition and doctrine. That doctrine was not as a combat rifle but as a target rifle. That rifle decreased the effectiveness in ambushes as well as urban firing. The problem was the Army just adopted it because they did not want to make a new requirement and that it fit the requirements to use the new XM855 cartridge. It has nothing to do with being in the Army, no military over seas who used A2’s were trained on using those sights either. There is a much larger picture as to my feelings on this subject. Not as simple as you may think. That is why you have a BZO 25 meter target for that rifle that has nothing to do with the elevation beyond 300. Perhaps if you really got the entire picture it might not be so annoying. It’s not so simple as branch rivalry.
You flex your vocabulary, yet you know exactly shit about fuck. Which combat deployment were you on where you utilized the adjustability of the A2 sights? Right. You weren't. Stick to studying law. Get lost.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
I find it absolutely fascinating to hear how Colt made almost the worst possible decision every time they were given the opportunity too. They had so much money coming in, all they had to do was make good decisions. NOPE!
Not so much Colt, it was the US Government. Colt provided what they were asked when they were asked.
@@SmallArmsSolutionsdo you know why American procurement decisions are so bad?
@@HazztechBureaucracy
Similar to your diction choices....
Ordnance corps was always that way if you look at history. That put the US behind our allies as well as adversaries.
Very informative (as always). As a former Canadian infantryman (35 yrs) I appreciate the love shown us when we get something right. Diemaco C7s, C8s were chosen to arm the Dutch, Danish and SAS (Diemaco Commando).
I joined in 83 and lived through the whole evolution from FN C1 A1 to C7 to C7 A1 to the C7 A2 that I was issued in during 2 deployments to Afghanistan.
I have great respect for the Canadian SARP Program and the way they build their weapons. They got it right.
@@SmallArmsSolutions When the A1s came in, I remember hefting one the first time and thinking (with the slightly thicker C1 brl and the addition of the C79 scope) "hmm. Seems almost as heavy as our C1 (FAL) now..."
I was working alongside the guys implementing the SARP in the Infantry School (disclosure, I was a 19 yr old officer cadet in 1984 - so, next to useless). I expressed interest in the C8 and was told by the WO working on things that it was strictly for armoured crews and that we in the infantry would never ever see them... except after they'd been around for a while and more senior officers would find a way to get them so as to look cool.
Well, there were a hell of a lot of C8 A2s being used by the infantry in Afg. Being a staff offr, I didn't rate one. Fair enough. We put so much extra 'stuff' on them they wound up fairly heavy as well (like the US M4).
@@lib556you're not wrong about the weight difference;
While doing musuem work for my unit, i found an old FN C1 pam and it described how much the rifle weighed.
The exact text was "about 10 lbs" when fully loaded with a 20 round magazine.
Flash forward to the most current C7A2 pam. The weight described for a fully loaded rifle with the C79A2 optic is 4.58kg
Which comes to 10 lbs.
Yeah, the weight advantage when the C7 was adopted just up and left LMAO
@@burnyburnoutze2nd I didn't have to look it up, I lugged the C1 though my first 5 yrs in the army. I also marched and carried it on ex in the previous 5 yrs as an army cadet (back when we always had rifles/blanks etc on ex and always carried them on parade... ah, the good old days). Plus, I own 2 x FALs (not C1s, unfortunately).
They must have done something right when most north flank Nato countries use this weapon , rather than for example M16 or M4 ...
I've always loved the simplicity of the C7 compared to the M16a4. The Canadians figured out how to give troops optics and attachments without the massive weight and cost of a quad rail.
Many don’t realize the C7 is not a TDP Colt. Many manufacturing and conceptual changes. Better thought out and far more realistic and not as expensive.
I looooved my C7A2 when i served, didnt let me down and the accuracy was just great to me 👌 2nd Canadian Division 34th Combat Engineer Regiment 2012
One of the few places on the web to find first source and historically accurate information about these firearms. Thanks for your continued contributions, Chris!
Did your Canadian parts come with a complimentary Tim Hortons?
As a Canadian, I sure hope not lol
A case of Molson Golden eh!
I just subscribed to your patreon and the information on this one video was worth every penny..Why you don't have 10 times the subscribers is beyond me.. Great content!
Some smoovbrain reported his channel a few years back and he had to start over. I agree completely.
The M5 rails aren’t putting that much heat into rail let alone the receiver. The M5 stiffens the barrel. The M4A1 top and side Lug were/are breaking from suppressor use while taking on the most force because they’re by the extractor. If it was bending enough to break lugs it’d be bending enough to cause cracking before that lug breaking point.
You might enjoy the Chartered Industries of Singapore (CIS) M16S1, and the history/characteristics of various M16s (and "AR15" - military full auto AR15 rifles and LMGs) in Singapore! They had slightly different features to most M16s and M16A1s, and were the main service rifle for teeth units from 1968 until the early 2000s.
When Mr. Bartocci talks ARs - you'd better pay attention. Amazing knowledge and experience being shared here...
i was an USMC Infantryman ( 0311-0369) and went through the changes.and carried the A2, A4, and M4 .lol was a pain.. 94-2014 .. we changed a lot of them.. i like your theoreies and they make sense. awesome videos, as always! soo true about the 500 meter..lmao
So cool to get all these historical facts. I am currently working with the C7 in aktiv service, and even though it is old, it is still one strong workhorse.
15:36 that green furniture is really cool, I prefer the full rifle stock (and an Otis cleaning kit designed to fit in it)
(Unrelated to video after this) and adding an aftermarket Magpul grip to hold extra lube/batteries/Skittles or whatever, but sometimes I put the A2 grips back on for my A4 clone
Still, if that green furniture was in my price range, I'd snag it instantly.. maybe I'll find n buy a Magpul rifle length grip to dip/paint/whatever and make it green n add mlok
As always a wealth of knowledge and information. I appreciate you continuing to take the time and make more videos. Happy holidays brother.
I tend to subscribe to a channel when I’m looking something up and the same channel will show up with the information, you sir have answered all my question on the m16a1,a2,xm16, and the c7 you deserve much more subscribers
Former sergeant, Royal Canadian Artillery. I loved the C7. I agree with you. We made all the right choices when adopting the M16 series.
finished my C7A2 all Canadian Parts less the lower (fully marked Canadian) and the Colt Hbar barrel , had the upper cut to 14 rails and scalloped edges.. almost done my C8 and L119A1 now
Interesting point about the RAS on M-16A4 being a heat sink to the detriment of rifles reliability.
Thanks for another interesting and informative video! Your knowledge transfers never disappoint!
Thank you for making this video, cause I didn’t know what made the Damaco c7 rifles special
This channel is pure gold if it comes to reliable information about the history of gun development. Awesome content. Thank you so much !
My Dad has the carbine C7 , with Aimpoint 3000,Q dive light, he was SF in 80s
Awesome video I really enjoy them... Learn something new every time 😀
The carry handle with the A1 sight is 178 dollars on Brownells. I don't care how good the A1 sight is supposed to be. A NcStar or Aero detachable that's 40 to 90 is more approachable
There's a lot of AR rails, sights, mounts etc out there but ARMS mounts are the best IMO. Dick Swan has done a lot for our defense department.
Since his death, his rails are all severely outdated. But back in the day he was cutting edge
I've spent way too many hours of my life looking for a Diemaco "CS" fixed stock to no avail. A2 material/aesthetic with A1 length of pull, which is perfect imho.
Unless you're looking for 100% authenticity, I think PSA has a new A1 stock that may fit the bill. It even has a foam core. They have been selling it as part of either the H&R retro line, or for the sabre line.
(I have also spent some time looking for a facsimile of a CS stock. Settled on one of those hollow A1 stocks. Not sure if I want to swap to the PSA one)
For the longest time I always thought “why did it take so long for the 1913 rail to become standardized? It’s been around forever and so many guns just ignored it?”
I thought it was invented in 1913….
Great video! I would also like to see you do a review or at least a q&a on the commercial Cold M4a1 carbines out on the market. One thing about this video, my understanding is that the Marines used the Knights Armament BUIS instead of the Match on the M16a4 rifles.
The development of the A2 sighting system wasn't all that necessary for practical purposes, but nor was it a real issue outside of theoretical. Never hurt anyone. It still had a battle zero and allowed the tradition, stigma of marksmanship fundamentals be kept in the modern era.
It added a significant cost to the rifle that was not necessary. Many additional parts.
Stoner was told the M1 Garand rear sight was magnificent, but was a terrible combat sight because nervous soldiers will fidget and turn knobs under stress..This is why they rejected Stoners original adj rear sight..They didn't want a rifle that could have its zero easily changed.They wanted it to be deliberate..Makes sense..
You are correct. The Army wanted a simple battle sight for appropriate ranges. That was very different from the Garand and M14. Up to 300 yards not 500 to 1K yards.
The most practical original configuration Colt carbine was the 605, but it needed gas system tweaking.
Mine has never skipped a beat, and it has RLGS but slightly-longer barrel. I've shot it in the cold at 6300ft elevation without any malfs.
It has an original pre-'63 Colt slick chrome bolt carrier, Type D stock, no later than 1972 handguards, and a hybrid phenolic resin mottled texture pistol grip.
Oh, yay, the pure gun nerd info that I need and deserve from SAS!
Thanks for the video! I’ve been on an M16 kick. Just finished building a slick side Air Force clone, and A1 clone. Both of those rifles make me go ah ha, this is what the M16 was meant to be. After owning just an A4 for so long, I started to think they were crazy for putting the M16 up against the AK47 in the jungle. The A1 feels 3 times more “assaulty” 😂 and lightweight/faster transitions. Doesn’t feel like a 20” barrel.
Thanks Chris I Would Love to Own One Of The Canadian C7 Rifles Someday 😊😀❤️ Thank You Dick Swan For Being Ahead of The Curve 😀😊
My old Colt SP2 is a clone of the C7. From the factory with A2 barrel & furniture with A1 upper. Absolutely love this rifle. 🤠
That was my first rifle. AR-15A2 Sporter II
Love it!! Thanks for passing ur knowledge on to us Chris!!
I thoroughly enjoy Diemaco content!
Me: "I've always wondered how you would use the rear sight that far in front of the scope"
SAS: "That's the neat part...you don't"
I liked the carry handle/acog combo as i can switch to the irons without detaching acog, also the raised optic was more comfortable. Only complaint was the raised optic was a little more uncomfortable in the prone position.
it sure is lot lest strain just like people put massive riser on the rifle nowadays, was straight neck shooting popular back in the days?
Yeah funny how things went from mounting optics on carry handle, to get it down almsot as low as possible to now back to deliberately mounting things high lol.
Always good when SAS drops a history lesson on his channel. I geek out with all the details. Thanks Chris for all you do. As a young man i swore i would never own an AR bcuz of friends stories how they would jam up in combat (Vietnam era soldiers). Once i found out why i changed my story. I love the platform for so many reasons now. I always wanted an M14 (M1a) but after watching your dislike i went to the ar10 platform. Eugene Stoner was a genius and i know why now.
Always interesting videos
Really enjoyed, good info, thanks
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "19" in "1913" comes from the width of the rail in mm. 19mm.
I am looking into it. There is a dimension that is 19mm but it’s not a width or depth. I got a friend who is a model maker who I am having look at the drawing. I would have thought it would have been an overall length. We shall see. I have never seen an official explanation for what it means.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I say that because I see some bases advertised as fitting "a standard 19mm rail". I presumed that's what it was.
You may be right. I am trying to see if there is anywhere to verify. I have yet to see an official word. There is still false info out there on the origin of the rail. That is a disservice to the man who standardized the dimensions and cheating out of his rightful place in history of this platform.
@@SmallArmsSolutions False info? On the internet? Say it ain't so! 😜
I like the simplicity of the M16 rear sight. The A2 sight has a lot more capability but I have never found a need for it unless I'm going to shoot at Gomers who are over 500 meters away. I freely admit I have trouble judging such distances and distinguishing friend from foe. Thanks to modern optics, the A2 sight is not a necessary or desirable feature.
As an aside, after 911 I became tangentially involved in an ongoing effort to upgrade the USAF inventory of M16 rifles with A2 kits. As far as I know we only did these conversions on our rifles, not on our GUU-5/P 14" carbines. We kept the M16 lowers, though I don't recall if we added the burst fire trigger kits (I hope not). We did supplement the GUU-5/P carbines with a large purchase of M4 carbines. We lacked the resources and time to convert enough M16s and acquire enough M4s to arm every Airman with one, so many deployed with an unaltered M16 or GUU-5/P. According to my notes the Navy made no upgrades to their M16A1 inventory at this time (circa 2004) and deployed with them as is. The problem was the Army was responsible for all small arms ammunition delivered and distributed in theater, which meant our Airmen (and presumably sailors) were being issued M855 instead of M193. I think it took us a year or more to sort out this mess.
FYI 20 years in the Canadian Army (infantry) I never once saw the detachable carrying handle. Only the backup iron sights (and C79 optic of course, as well as the odd EOTech).
Chris dropping truth bombs. Don't forget everyone, vote yes or no on Texas Independence on the primary ballot in March!
How the hell did I miss this one?!?
A lot of people rag on the A2 rear sight but i don't think the warfighters capability was at all diminished by it. I understand Stoners feelings on it but i just don't think it's a big deal. The most egregious thing done to the M16 was the government profile barrel and 3 round burst and to a lesser extent the A2 stock. The rear sight was far from a horrible mistake
The A2 sight is not practical. We BZO and that was it. It is expensive and really only useful on the Marine known distance qualification ranges. The original sight was what the Army asked for. Stoner offered the elevation in the rear like he had on the AR10. The Army said no. The Army required the detent drum rear sight instead of a knob. The army got what they asked for.
Very informative! Thank you!
Thank you.
The US is a large number military, with a lot of commitment with existing inventory, and Canada is a small, agile military, and can afford to reequip their military with new equipment more rapidly
I’m sure the US military knew about these improvements beforehand. They just wasn’t funding for logistics trading at the time.
The US military is often behind the 8 ball on small arms. Always behind many other countries. Canada just cut out all the red tape that it takes to get anything done unlike the US.
What do you mean ? Canada held on to the same FN Fal for 35 years till 1990 when they introduced their own C7/C8..
In the same periode the US army used the M14 from 1957, switching to M16a1 in the 60s and upgrading to M16a2 and then the M4 in 1994.
The US armed forces are much bigger and there are more units (army, usmc, socom) to introduce new weapons imo. They definitely wage more war theatres with their specific needs of arms..
i wish i could find a nice reproduction of that scope i really like it
I would think you could find the. They still issue them but green instead of black
Nice presentation. I would love to build a clone with the adjustable stock.
What would Canuck Stoner do?
Free float 605 ILGS with OD furniture, Canuck telestock.
U should have conpared it to either colt 715 or 701
These were actual issue rifles for the two countries
Just curious: where has it been reported that the KAC M5, when hot, transfers enough heat to the upper causing misalignment of the barrel/barrel extension? Also, what law prohibits the importation of the mentioned barrels? Thanks.
That is well known mechanics. Aluminum draws heat from the handguard cap and it goes back into the receiver. One of the major benefits of free float barrel outside accuracy. We are talking about the M5 and M4 RAS, not the free float URK
@@SmallArmsSolutions I have never heard of any discussion of this nor seen any formal report. Could you please provide a source/report? I am very curious. Especially considering that the M5 RAS mates with the barrel nut and delta ring...Not directly to the receiver - just like most every free float system. I mean I can definitely see how heat can transfer from the handguard cap to the rail (which, yes, would not occur with a free flat), but enough to heat the upper receiver? I don't know. Also, what about the transfer of heat from the barrel extension which is mated to the upper receiver directly?
I feel like at least some of these situations where we think that a smaller, less resourced country like Canada did something more efficiently or effectively than the US can potentially be attributed to resources or something like that. Places like Canada essentially have guard rails or limitations imposed on them due to resources and that can help streamline or rationalize things. They only have so mamy choices they can make. The fact that the US often has so many resources or big ideas and aspirations is almost a curse as much as a blessing.
I do not believe this to be the case. There are so many layers of bureaucracy in the US military. To many people who have to sign off. Many of which have to be convinced any change has to be a significant leap of improvement. Canada does not have that. If Diemaco/Colt Canada go to the Canadian army and say we have an improved spring or improved process, the Canadian military signs right off, they listen to the manufacturer. It to colt more than I think 10 years to get Rock Island/Picitinny to approve the brass M4 extractor spring for use with the M16A2/A4. The M9 pistol, there was a new locking block that increased the life cycle nearly 10K rounds. The Army would not approve it. But when the Marines got the COTS M9A1, they got all the new updated components. This is my take. Progress is halted by bureaucracy.
@@SmallArmsSolutionsthe American armed forces has the same sort of curse when it comes to bureaucracy as our Russian and Soviet friends had. Kinda crazy how 2 different nations politically, suffered from the same nepotism and stagnation militarily.
Agree, that is what kept bot nations behind their allies in weapons technology. Russia is even worse than the US. In 2023, they are still using WW2 small arms lacking. Capabilities of range, accuracy, optics and force multipliers like lights and lasers.
Chris, what’s a good book on how at type rifles were manufactured prior to the widespread availability of CNC?
Knew dudes who filed down the rails on their C8's in Afghanistan so their qd mounts would work.
Interesting I had a home defense semi-auto 12ga Shotgun with a Weaver rail, I never even heard of it till then.
Do you have any thoughts on the Windham Weaponry factory closing this year?
It was very sad they closed. They had severe financial problems they just could not get out of. I think after Richard Dyke passed is when things went south
Windham Weaponry reopened 2 or 3 weeks ago, and their website is up and running again. 🎉
@@michaelfloyd2392 I'll have to check that out! Thanks... Well, I'm guessing inventory sell off. No information about the sudden closure that I saw.
I believe this is just them clearing inventory. No complete weapons and no options like before on uppers nor parts. My guess is this is what was left over after the auctions.
This will come as a complete shock to you, but in my experience, a significant number of CAF members (especially Mcpl and below) these days do not know how to properly mount the BUIS like you demonstrated here, or in some cases how to use/zero irons at all. Our current pam literally instructs soldiers to mount the sight via "the sloped angle towards the target with the correct eye relief".
If those instructions are followed, the sight is mounted backwards. This can be seen nearly constantly in most publically available CAF social media account posts featuring the BUIS. Many mounting them on the wrong portions of the rail (mid way, 2/3rds etc). The irony is the publically available Colt Canada manuals do show how to mount the BUIS properly, and not the CAF exclusive pams.
Also, it is possible to use the BUIS all the way forward, but only with the large aperture and only in CQB situations. It allows the sights to be aligned significantly quicker and with less effort vs the standard all the way to the rear, at least from my messing around with it. Obviously, all the way to the rear is preffered, but I figured that out when messing around with my own Diemaco rear sight and noticed that difference.
Also I am 100% going to clip the portion where you demonstrate how to properly mount the BUIS and show it to my fellow soldiers, and if they question why they should listen to you, I'll just show them the copy of black rifle vol. 2 we have in our unit museum reference library with the C7 section open.
The Canadian made their flat top lower than the US M4 flat top. They kept the standard height front sight. Their rifles will shoot low, but to the same POI (point of impact) of the carry-handle-M16. The U.S. "F" marked front sight is taller than the standard front sight. The rifle will shoot lower. See? Both Canadian and American changes converge here - to make the flat-top-rifle shoot low to the same POI (point of impact) of the carry-handle-M16.
Um, no they made hit sit higher so they did not have to use a taller front tight base to align the rear BUIS or the carrying handle and kept the same from sight post as the original C7
@@SmallArmsSolutions A taller front sight (F marked front sight) will make the rifle shoot lower. If you want the rifle to shoot low, you can either raise the front sight (F marked as did American) or lower the rear sight.
@@SmallArmsSolutions I know it's getting confusing. You may want to measure both flat tops to settle the matter once for all. Thanks.
Prior to this version, did the Canadians ever use a pencil barrel version, WITH case deflector and fixed and/or removable carry handle?
Only on the C8A1
Thanks! I thought they might have had an “A1” style rifle, but with case deflector, unlike the U.S., but a quick read seems to show they used the C1 (FAL) until going to the C7. @@SmallArmsSolutions
Canadians for the most part built the models the Army used. Unlike Colt who had models for everything. Colt would have military customers who chose configuration Colt would build to. If you were to look at Colts model list compared to Diemaco/Colt Canada you would be shocked at how much fewer models Diemaco/Colt Canada has.
Great information! It never surprises me on how bad the U.S. government creates red tape to slow the process down for small arms or anything. I don't know why unless it's a lot of power plays and money.
I wonder what buffer and spring combo they use for the rifle length gas system and carbine lower for the C7A2 model?
The rear sight looks an awful lot like the one Daniel Defense makes...lol
It’s designed as a backup, not primary. It serves its purpose quite well. The DD one is a non folding fixed position sight. Different animal. The DD is made of aluminum, not lightweight polymer.
So has Colt changed now that CZ is in?
Man I want one of those Diemaco detachable A1 carry handles. Can’t stomach $400 on GB though 😵💫
Hint- look around for L119 airsoft handle from a Canada or UK airsoft store. Some are better copies of the original than others. Same also for a budget tri-rail.
@@stevegee218 I’ve already got a legit Diemaco lower, upper & BCG, rear buis, tri-ad, collapsible stock, and an Elcan C79.
What I’m saying is I’m broke lol.
Just get a CNC machine A1 carry handle. Yes, it's not clone correct but it is close enough.
I wish they imported the C7 barrel into the U.S.
Same. I wanted to do a C7A1 Clone
19 like 19mm?
SAS 🇺🇸
Thanks Sir😎
UKSF, in general, used this weapon or C8s ......I wonder what they are using now ? SIG SPEAR LTS is the rumour 🇬🇧
Actually they just got the Knights Armament carbine spec'd out for them,.. really nice, love to here Chris touch on it
@@Frank-uw5xq That's the Ranger's and 43 Commando......Not UKSF
It was a KAC rifle that replaced the L119A1/A2. Probably 3x the cost to purchase an 10x the cost to maintain. Colt Canada’s biggest set back was never developing Ambi controls.
I think adding functionality to the sight serves a valuable purpose. I like the A1 sights, but the A2 sights are perfect. The US has always taken target rifles to war, the A2 is no exception. By saying that soldiers can't be trusted to use the functionality or than they aren't trained to handle it is either pathetic or insulting to the professional soldiers.
I like the idea of set and forget BZO, but more functionality that doesn't impede you is never a bad thing. Peak uppers are Mk18 flat tops with the chopped A2 rear sight and you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise.
Target sights are not practical for combat. It’s an addiction $80 per rifle for something most will never use except on a Marine target range. No other country on modern rifles used this type of system because 300 meters is the farthest you can really effectively engage a human target with iron sights. It’s not about impeding, it’s about what is practical and most effective. Keep in mind, it was the Army who required the A1 rear sight without a knob so it could not be easily changed. The made it with the lowest common denominator in mind. Not insulting at all. Give them what is practical. Keep in mind what SOCOM did, they got rid of that A2 sight very early on to folding backup sights which removed the elevation capability.
@@SmallArmsSolutions this really only applies to rifles prior to the widespread use of optics, but on rifles only using iron sights I believe the A2 sight system is superior. Given the ubiquitous nature of optics that really changes the equation from what sight system is the most functional on its own, to useable without being in the way. A simple flip up with minimal adjustment like the A1 sight is perfect for being out of the way with 0 chance of losing that zero as a much more desirable feature. When you're talking the A2 sight system, for a rifle with only iron sights, it's better on the range for training marksmen *and* loses nothing for a combat rifle. Quickly changing the range with the elevation drum is what I see as the key advantage. A clear denotation of the range your rifle is set to while also being much simpler to achieve a basic BZO rather than the 400 yard zero with a low hold at closer ranges (an excellent use of fixed sights with proper training that i quite like in theory but requires a lot more training for the lowest common denominator than a sight with elevation adjustment).
I know some sights used on earlier carbines had the short and long range sights on the rear L to mitigate the need for the elevation change function, and I think that's the best compromise while maintaining the light weight and slim profile of the A1, but the functionality of zeroing the rifle for 100 and changing the elevation with the drum actually appeals quite a bit for lowest common denominator with only basic range training. Every Marine not only learns the basics in boot camp, but at least when I went through, teaching range estimation and training on an unknown distance range, the A2 sight was perfect (though the RCO was a far better piece of kit for range estimation and not worrying about what distance your zero is set at). Trust me, some of the guys I went through with were pretty low denominators, but with training, the features at least could be understood enough to be leveraged by those guys rather than them being a hindrance.
Again, that goes right out the window when the RCO came into play, they don't even teach the use of iron sights in boot camp anymore, and they only issue backup sights to the guys that can be expected to need them, who no question of competence at shooting will ever be asked of. Backup sights are best when they're out of the way and the A2 sight will never be that. At that point, the added cost for a backup sighting system is a much more reasonable argument. The A2 is definitely not that intricate ladder sight on the thompson. It is a valuable function worth the added cost when you're talking about your *primary* sighting system, that's the real point I was trying to make. Likely it also comes into play with the fact that the first AR I ever built used the A2 upper. I learned to shoot on my Dad's CAR-15 with the A1 sight but did most of my shooting on mine with the A2, then trained on the M16A4 with the removable A2 sight when I joined; so i do have a strong bias for the sight that comes from using it as a civilian and as a Marine at many ranges.
I definitely respect your opinion. In military use KISS works best. Over complicating for minimal benefit with higher cost is not enough to justify
@@SmallArmsSolutions I appreciate you taking the time to read and respond. I do agree, the Canadian C7s did a much better job of applying KISS than the A4. Having just watched your old vid on your ideal service rifle, I think a few of your points here definitely show through on that old build.
Did the US Military request or require the carry handle on the M16 & others that followed???
The original rifles were designed and adopted with the carrying handle. Once the flat top came out they requested the detachable carrying handle. The more optics were used, the back up sight replaced the detachable carrying handle.
If I am not mistaken the 19 comes from the width in mm
That sounds possible. The prints are in inches but I am sure were converted to mm for foreign manufacturers
.0748 is one of the dimensions but not the overall width. Judging from the drawing, I’m not quite sure what it’s calling out. I will look into it!
Where would you buy an A1 carrying handle?
I saw an American version on Brownells sight.
Yeah broh, Brownells has their own version for only $200!
Sigh…Col. David Lutz developed the M16A2 to be the best combat service rifle for the time. It had absolutely zero input from the rifle teams. It actually had more design input from the army.
No, the Army had no input on the development. Lutz came up with requirements, colt engineers executed it. Read BR2. Whole chapter. Also a video on M16A2 development. I completely believe the Canadians had a far better approach than the M16A2. That rifle has Marine Rifleman all around it. It was designed for known range targets with target not combat sights. The 5-800 meters were for area, not human targets. You can’t see a human that far and if you did the front sight post would cover it so you had no point of aim. The C7 was much better thought out for a combat rifle. The sights on the A2 were for target shooting on Marine known distance targets. Not Practical field sights and not that burst crap. Proper stock length. The A2 was very difficult to use with body armor. Everyone seems to forget the designers. Check out all the patens on the A2. But make no mistake, the A2 specs came from marines solely. Army adopted by default without making the changes they knew they should have. Army infantry does not shot past 300 meters. No bullseye or known distance targets. Enemy troops dont wear bullseye
I wish canadian citizens could have semi-auto replicas. We are allowed to have other semi-auto's chambered in 5.56 with shorter barrels. No reason law abiding citizens can't enjoy a piece of history to go with our lee-enfields
I hate to be a the bearer of bad news, but if our communist dictator Justine Castreau (AKA Justin Trudeau) stays in power much longer, he will be prohibiting ALL semi auto center fires and not just AR15s. He tried to add it to bill C21 earlier this year, but had to withdraw the amendment. A new order is council is sure to follow soon.
BTW I happen to own a Diemaco SA20 which is the semi auto version of the C7 - what a beauty of a rifle - too bad it is soon to be confiscated unless we get a new government.
The canadian carry handle though mmmmm
Hello, what is the barrel life of M16A2/A4 and Diemaco C7A1? I have seen data about the life of M16A2 and A4 in 6000,10000,15000 rounds and the life of C7 barrels in 30000, but I do not know if this data is correct, especially confuses the life of barrels 6000.
6k is the minimum stat card by the US govt. It has several variables. Normal limited full auto is easily 10 to 15K. The hammer forge will get you around 20K. It’s very hard to say due to the variables. But 6k is mil spec. The rifles exceed 2 to 3x
@@SmallArmsSolutions Thanks!In this case we are talking about standard barrels for M16A2 and A4, as far as I know M4A1 or M27 IAR barrels have longer barrel life, but their barrels are more expensive and of higher quality. I have heard that 6000 is milspec, but sometimes it is given as barrel life. Another strange thing was at Australian tests, some M16A2s showed 5000 barrel life, but it is not clear whether the rifles were already used, not new, or whether the barrels were of low quality (I heard Colt had quality problems).
I've heard the c7 has a 'squeeze barrel', meaning that the bore gets a little bit narrower towards the front. Is that true?
Yes the choke
@@SmallArmsSolutions does it work? As in, does it have a significant effect?
It does assist with better accuracy and tighter gas seal which also may increase velocity slightly.
@@SmallArmsSolutionsdoesnt every CHF barrel has it? Isn't it the byproduct of hammer forging, to easy of removing the mandrel from the forged barrel?
Is it possible that the 19 is referring to 19 centimetres?
Possible, that is around the length of the rail in 7.258 in v 7.480 normal 19cm conversion. Very possible
What profile were the Canadian rifles? Surely not government. Be really cool if PSA would leverage their H&R line with their FN barrels to make one.
Standard US govt profile
@@SmallArmsSolutions why did they decide to use government profile in Canada? Did they think barrels were bending too?
They stuck with the profile i imagine to keep the weight down like why the US never used heavy barrels. But the totally redid the manufacturing process. For all intents and purposes, the C7 and the M16A2 barrels are quite different.
how do you figure that a rifle iron sight cant be used that far forward??
Small aperture, that far away. Don’t think so
🇺🇸
The hottest part of the barrel isn’t near the chamber area?
No sir. Powder has not burned enough at the chamber. Powder reaches its peak temperature at this point in the barrel
oooooh, good topic
I’ve lost a great deal of respect for Colt over the last few years 😕🙁☹️
That's a nice rifle, eh...
Dick was an interesting individual. He did not like females working, to say the least. One of the most miserable people I've ever met.
I'm from Bridgewater, and Arms Inc was in the next two over. Jobs were few and far between, so for a girl being a receptionist for arms was kind of a big deal.... But NONE lasted more than a few months because Mr Swan was so caustic and rude.
While I was dropping off lunch to a former girlfriend I distinctly remember him saying, "Oh, you're here for Jenn. Well if she doesn't grow some t!ts, she's gone! What's the point of hiring a useless woman if you can't look at them?"... that was 96-97.
Stacy, his longest receptionist, was there from 2006 until his death. I'm not sure if you dealt with her at any point, but she was good people.
Arms Inc never sold a thing over the counter... Just to get in to the tiny stone building, you had to be buzzed in, and you'd better have an appointment.
What a grumpy dude. Just miserable and wanted to spread that misery to any and everyone.
Great products, and I get that geniuses work in different ways... But he was an certified a$$hole.
He will not be missed.
You are so correct! Dick was a close friend but he was as you say. Brilliant.
@@SmallArmsSolutions
I hear that Einstein insisted on his shoes being tied for him... So the crazy genius thing makes for some abrasive social conduct.
It happens.
I do not judge the art on the artist.
Excellent video by the way... The fact that Colt Canada essentially created the individual battle optic idea for such a great firearm needs to be acknowledged. Arms, LWRC, Knights, Daniels, all private businesses that actually care about the rifle and the individuals holding it in combat.
My hat is off to your dedication.
I apologize if I came off as trying to diminish Arms. The dude was a creep.... Whatever, he still pioneered and fully contributed to the standard setting modularity of the M4/M16A4 system up to and including all generations of the sopmod upgrades.
Sure, he didn't make the best stuff, but he laid the foundation for others to make the best stuff. Innovative, crusty brilliant genius.
I hope your doing well, I know that leaves and berries won't replace a steak... But we're all with you brother.
H-minus.
All the way.
Those of us who were close to him called him Uncle Dick. If he was your friend he was the greatest guy but if you were not, god help you. His personality was very abrasive and he made sure you knew he was wealthy. He viciously defended his patents. He made more on paten infringement settlements than he ever did in product. But regardless of his personality, he was a significant contributor to the US SOCOM as well as many foreign governments. He deserves his place in history for his contributions.
@@SmallArmsSolutions
😂
Completely understand.
Then I, a pimpled teen, nor the majority of his employees were his friend.
He was as cuddly as a porcupine engulfed in flames.
The utmost polite respect was greeted with a scowl that'd make Ebenezer Scrooge stagger in awe.
Again, the art. Not the artist.
@Matt-416 oh please, as if they invented the concept of putting optics on rifles. Take it easy
Chris, b/c of your research I've stopped using the term "pic rail" and exclusively use "1913 rail".
Also, it doesn't surprise me that Colt made the decisions and route they took on designs and re-designs. Its always all about $$$$...
Also, I thought CAFs had it right w/the C7A2. When I was in Afghanistan, I worked a lot w/the Canadians and to take a closer look at their C7A2s. The telescopic stock paired w/the 20" was brilliant!!!
Hey Carrey! AIM LOW! I believe in using proper terms no matter how much it goes against public opinion. In court, a forensic firearms examiner is expected to use proper terminology. I carry that to everything I do
diemaco >
M16a4 was ridiculously heavy
I 100% agree. I've built a near clone M16A4 with the RCO ACOG, KAC RAS rail and with the weapon light and vertical grip, it is unnecessarily heavy for a general purpose rifle. It shows the intelligence levels of the Marine Corps Generals who handled the M4 back in the late 1990s/early 2000s and said to themselves "Naaa, the M4 sucks".
algorithm
I had a brand new out of the box C7 in Kuwait City in March '90. A young US soldier in a slick uniform asked if it was an M16A2. I said, no. Better. I unloaded and passed it to him. We still had Thermold mags as issued, but I had some USGI Vietnam age metal mags through my father in Canada. Jump ahead to '02-03 I had a C7A1 issued to me in Bosnia. With the exception of the bayonet itself, every other piece of equipment had changed over to something better than in the Gulf. In '07-08 I carried a C7A2 in Afghanistan. An even better rifle IMHO.
While the C7 is generally better than the M16, the M16 generally came with better optics.
The curse of being an early adopter. Cutting edge for five years and then when it's time to upgrade in ten there's not any money left to replace the old janky thing that has since been outclassed.
Definitely some features that put the C7's ahead of their American contemporaries. I also like that they stuck with the 20" barrel for standard issue with the C7A2's. Neutering the 5.56 with 14.5" barrels caused a lot of of the issues we had with effect on target in Afghanistan.
The most astonishing thing in this video to me was that the Army never trained you on hiw to use A2 sights. That is a major failure. The A2 sights are very effective combat sights. They are simple to operate, and give you the capability to effectivly put rounds on target out to 500m. They also have 2 rear apertures: a "combat" (wider field of view) aperture for shooting CQB up to 100m, and a "precision" aperture for shooting outside of 100m. It's a shame that they failed to train their personnel on the system, I could easily teach a group of people to use them in under an hour. Leave them set at 3/6 small gap on the combat aperture, and you are set for any ambush or close in enemies. If you have to engage someone farther out, flip your aperture, dial you range, put rounds on target. That easy. Far better system than the A1 setup. Thanks for the video. 👍🏼
If you are shooting at area targets perhaps. Human targets I think that’s a far stretch for most soldiers to see let alone engage. I think it is a target, not a combat sight. But that’s my opinion. Canadians agreed.
14.5" has plenty of velocity. The differences are so small as to be meaningless.
M855
20" 3050fps
14.5" 2920fps
Once we went to the M4/M4A1 in the 1990s, we never looked back.
Iron sights are a non-starter nowadays, other than 4th tier back-ups.
You can't PID targets at 300yds, let alone 500 using irons/naked eye. You need optics.
We drug our feet in adopting optics on rifles and carbines in the US.
JSOC drove that train and it finally trickled down, primarily through Ranger Regiment, and then the JRDF Combat Divisions.
@@LRRPFco52 oh I'm not arguing for irons over optics! 😆 When I got my RCO (ACOG in Corps speak), it domintated irons. I'm saying that A2 irons are better all around sights than the A1 irons. Within 200m 14.5" barrels are fine, and they are better for inside vehicles and clearing buildings. Past that, you didn't get reliable fragmentation from M855. 20" barrels would get reliable fragmentation out to around 400m.
It's absolutely valid to put accurate fire on targets out too 500m. Even if (as you correctly point out) you can't easily spot individual targets at 500m with irons; a team leader could spot them with binos, a direct the fires of his team. Putting accurate fire on the enemy's position allows you to cover the movement of your other teams/squads to close with and destroy the enemy. It's not enough to just shoot in their direction to suppress, you need accurate fire. The A2 sights facilitated that, and the Marines used them to good effect.
@@usmcvet0313 How many times have we ever heard of a Rifle Squad Leader or Fire Team Leader ranging area targets, then commanding their guys to rotate their elevation drums to 400, 450, or 500m, and fire for effect though?
It wasn't a thing in Panama or ODS that I've ever heard, let alone GWOT.
ACOG sold itself all day long for Infantry. I'm not a big ACOG guy, but it was probably the best force multiplier that came along for line infantry units when looking at PID and increased hit probability.
As to 14.5" vs 20" frag threshold, that bullet slows down really fast. 130fps difference at the muzzle will never equal 200yds difference in fragmentation behavior.
The 20" will hit the 14.5" mv at ~40yds at sea level, 75yds at 6300ft above sea level.
Assuming a consistent 2600fps frag threshold (which was never consistent with M855), 20" would give you just over 150yds. 14.5" would give you 115yds.
It's why they went to Mk.318 SOST, Mk.262, Brown Tip 70gr TSX from Barnes, and M855A1.
The frag threshold advantage from a 20" has been widely exaggerated. It's there, but just not worth all that length for a measley 35yds.
I liked the M16A1 a lot, didn't care for the A2, and had to pinch myself when we turned in the muskets and drew out brand new M4s. Anytime I saw an A2 after that, I felt sorry for the kids who were issued them.
In the CAF, we had something called "The run down," where you would start at 400m, run to the 300m line, shoot, run to the 200m line, shoot, etc. The C79 optic was adjustable out to 800 in 100m increments. In theory, you would adjust your sights at every known distance line as you reached it. But when sucking wind, mangaing reloads (mags were loaded to very specific roundcounts) and trying to engage targets in a tight time limit, can you guess how many people would remember to? Pretty much nobody. Thankfully, the closer you get, the less your range adjustment mattered.
A full auto & semi automatic trigger is a much more accurate trigger than the stupid 3-round burst & semi auto that we had with the M16A2. Good job Canada.
really in-depth...funny how good ideas from Canada, from rifle parts to VTOL CL-84, are always "killed off" by USA politics and industry... the CL-84 was better than the UH-1 in almost every way, but, "not invented here"....one has to wonder at the cost in money and lives lost, when the USA spurns other sources of military design...original FAL, for instance, CF-105, CL-84...Z
Yeah, it's always just as simple as "not designed here" please.
Yet again more whining about the A2 rear sights. Your disdain for the Marine Corp's focus on rifle marksmanship is extremely annoying.
The marines marksmanship has nothing to do with combat accuracy. You can see the disdain in me because there are people who don’t know the difference, You modify, increase cost to a rifle that nobody else uses. Those sights were designed for the Marine qualification known distance ranges. Not for combat. The M16 is a battle rifle not a camp Perry match rifle for guys who just shoot at known distance bullseyes. They ever were special shooting coats on the range and slings. Things you do NOT do in the field! Targets in combat also do not have bullseyes on them. So no, their marksmanship doctrine and combat use are two different things. The Canadians did get it right. It took a lot of years to unscrew the A2/M4. Finally got rid of that rear sight and the stupid burst mechanism. At least the SOCOM M4A1 corrected that other ridiculous heavy in the wrong spot barrel. I do find people’s inability to get from tradition to real world use annoying. It also amazes me no other country in the world puts that shit on the rifle sight. That tells you where the smallest branch of the US military training and traditions stand up against the rest of the world. Practical priorities. That sight cost the US Govt a lot of money over the years, especially when pretty much everyone battle sight zeroed their rifle and left their sights alone, same as they did the practical A1 rear sight. Don’t tell me, you think the US should go back to the 1911 to!
@@SmallArmsSolutions Geez, someone's angry! What an absolute meandering screed! Especially with that random aside about the burst mechanism, heavy barrel, and the 1911 pistol. Those are entirely separate issues on their own and it's foolish to assume I have any admiration for any of those things. To me, the constant moaning about the Marine Corps and their so-called 'target rifles' in so many of your videos reeks of typical "I was in the Army and those Marines aren't as cool as they think" pettiness. I find it super cringey and it always makes me roll my eyes when I'm trying to watch something mature and informative and we the audience have to stop and wait ten seconds as you vent your frustrations about the Marine Corps at every opportunity. Then again, you don't have to change your whole presentation style for my sake. I just find it incredibly annoying.
Good day.
Maybe you should look at the practicality of the argument as to real world use. Part of my work is answered foreign military weapon replacement programs. Looking at what their requirements and designing weapon to fit. This particular issue at hand is contrary to every program I have been involved with and researched. Working for Colt, I know it cost the US government $80 for that rear sight that nobody other than one branch, the smallest customer in the DoD required. I am critical on weapons development and look at everything as objective and what’s in the best interest of the troops. So this is a big issues in misappropriation of funds as well as overcomplicating a sight that nobody used. Millions of dollars for a useless feature. Does that not bother you as a taxpayer? The A2 was a Marine design, designed around their tradition and doctrine. That doctrine was not as a combat rifle but as a target rifle. That rifle decreased the effectiveness in ambushes as well as urban firing. The problem was the Army just adopted it because they did not want to make a new requirement and that it fit the requirements to use the new XM855 cartridge. It has nothing to do with being in the Army, no military over seas who used A2’s were trained on using those sights either. There is a much larger picture as to my feelings on this subject. Not as simple as you may think. That is why you have a BZO 25 meter target for that rifle that has nothing to do with the elevation beyond 300. Perhaps if you really got the entire picture it might not be so annoying. It’s not so simple as branch rivalry.
You flex your vocabulary, yet you know exactly shit about fuck.
Which combat deployment were you on where you utilized the adjustability of the A2 sights? Right. You weren't. Stick to studying law. Get lost.