Talk:Colt Canada C7 rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Norway (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Firearms (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Diemaco LSW[edit]

Colt and Diemaco paired up for this weapon, they did not develop it seperately. They have both upgraded their weapons to include a flat top reciever and other features seperately, but the weapons remain essentially the same. Colt definitly has a 900 series model number for what they sell now as the "Colt Automatic Rifle," I just don't know what it is. To see further proof of this, all you have to do is go to Colt.com and look at the picture for the Colt Automatic Rifle. If you look close enough you'll notice the maple leaf on the reciever, and the picture is actually of a Diemaco produced LSW. Its also why the LSW is the only Diemaco weapon featuring A2 style rear sights, even if the detachable carry handle is distinctively Diemaco. -- Thatguy96 23:37, 7 November 2005

Interesting- I did not get a chance to fact check what was there (adding link). I will certainly keep an eye out for info on this though. Ve3
I corrected some info on the C79 Elcan sight- it's great for field or forest engagements at distance, and is beautiful on the range (assuming it maintains its zero), but the comment that unlike other optical sights it is usefull for CQB is false. We (Canadian troops) almost universally hate it for urban combat training, and in Afghanistan troops are issued EOTech 552s. Many of us in the reserves have no alternative to the C79, but it's not unknown for some troops, particularly NCOs, to buy themselves an unmagnified reflex sight or backup iron sight for use in close quarters training. It's subject to unit policy of course. My unit is flexible with weapons additions as long as they're genuinely functional, while other units are much more 'by the book'. Otherwise, a good article on the C7. Brihard 13:11, 14 February 2005 EST

The LSW used by the Danish military features exactly the same fire selector as C7A1 and C8A2. It is not a full-auto-only weapon. Shorttail

The LSW is unpopular in the danish army:its not belt fed,has no possibility to change the barrel,eager to malfunction etc etc.So in afghanistan the good old (but heavy) MG3 is still used for a lot of tasks the LSW should be doing.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.129.26.73 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC) 

Links[edit]

The links for "Diemaco Small Arms Systems" and "Colt Canada" go to the same place. Is that intentional? 64.231.13.72 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Diemaco has been bought by Colt and renamed Colt Canada.
--Ng.j 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Weight[edit]

The table is useful, but would be even more so if weights were listed.
--Ng.j 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What this article really needs is a couple of infoboxes. If I have time I might do it, but that's really something missing here. -- Thatguy96 13:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Weapon origin[edit]

Okay, I've not reverted this about a dozen times from more than one person and its still wrong. The origin of this weapon is Canadian in terms of the production only. Colt licensed the production of the two initial variants and even assigned them internal model numbers. The weapon's design is firmly American in origin, regardless of subsequent variants. Stop changing this. -- Thatguy96 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The design is Canadian, but since the foundation is the M16 it would be appropriate to list American roots. My understanding is that the original C7 was modified from the M16A2. --Ng.j (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say the production methods and requirements are Canadian, the design is not dramatically different from any other AR-15/M16 pattern firearm in terms of its basic operation. It was developed jointly by Colt and Diemaco at the same time as the M16A2 for the US military and is much more similar to early developmental M16A1E1 rifles. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Resolved: No consensus of a merge (4/4)
  • Support - I'm not entirely clear why the C8 section got split off. Unlike the M4 Carbine, the C8 doesn't have a relatively seperate and complex history from its parent weapon, and in my mind doesn't have much potential for expansion beyond where it is now. If expanded, all it would contain is largely duplicate information about the functioning, setup, and origin of Canadian AR-15 pattern weapons that is already found in the C7 article. Unless it can be shown to merit a separate article, I think the section should be moved back in. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's entirely a different subject. The C7 is an assault rifle. The C8 is a scoped Carbine.
  • Oppose – Looking at the C8 Rifle article, there seems to be enough unique material about the carbine to justify a separate article. Also, in general a carbine could be different enough from the corresponding full sized rifle to not be considered a minor variant, and so could have its own article. For example, this is the case with M16 rifle and M4 Carbine, and with M1 Garand rifle and M1 carbine. Mudwater (Talk) 11:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - The M1 Garand and M1 Carbine are not related. The M4 Carbine has its own history revolving around it, previous M16 carbines are not given seperate articles. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - This one is a no brainer. If it were up to me the C7 should have been merged into the M16 a LONG time ago. Koalorka (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as what Mudwater said. Hellboy2hell (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG SUPPORT Carbine vs. Assault Rifle is not enough of a difference to warrant a separate article. The M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine are two separate weapons that are not related to each other. Granted, drawing this conclusion based on the fact that they both have “M1” in their titles is a common mistake. The M16 Rifle and M4 Carbine are separated because there is enough of a historical difference between the two, not because the M16 is an Assault Rifle and the M4 is a Carbine. In this case there is not a significant enough difference in either history or design to warrant a separate article.72.81.227.98 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT

99.237.93.61 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • STRONG OPPOSE - completely different weapons. whos the nub that claimed the C7 should have been merged with the m16 long ago. If it is merged all we will have is a tiny little paragraph on the C8 saying "its a bit different from the C7". Keep the seperate articles, it looks good and has a wealth of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.222.74 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


New merge proposal[edit]

Resolved: Consensus for merge (7/0)
  • Support - As in the last instance, I'm not entirely clear why the C8 section got split off. Unlike the M4 Carbine, the C8 doesn't have a relatively seperate and complex history from its parent weapon, and in my mind doesn't have much potential for expansion beyond where it is now. If expanded, all it would contain is largely duplicate information about the functioning, setup, and origin of Canadian AR-15 pattern weapons that is already found in the C7 article. Unless it can be shown to merit a separate article, I think the section should be moved back in. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - The C7 and C8 are nearly identical. There is a HUGE difference in weapons like the M16/M16A1 and the M16A2, yet they are merged, and rightfully so. The C7 and C8 are not different weapons and do not share the same differentiation as the M16 and M4 families. Further, they were made on a Colt Technical Package and produced under license and are, therefore, license produced M16's. Frankly, having two articles say the EXACT thing with the exception of a few dimensions is rediculous. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks like a clear case of a carbine variant article that belongs with the regular size rifle's article, especially since they are essentially duplicate articles, anyway. There appears to be a good reason to merge the two articles. Yaf (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Some good arguments brought up by Nukes4Tots. Koalorka (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per all of the above. No real reason to have what are essentially two duplicate articles. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support As has been already stated, there is not nearly enough of a difference in design or history to warrent two seperate articles. The should be merged.96.244.79.191 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - C8 rifle is completely associated with the C7 in enough ways to make it a single, practical article.Ghyslyn (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The merge has been done, with this edit. The article that was merged into this one was also renamed, from "C8 rifle" to "C8 carbine", so both of those now redirect to this article. In case anyone wants to see the article that was merged into this one, it's here. Mudwater (Talk) 14:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

C8 PDW[edit]

umm for C8 PDW I find 20 inches quite long, also need sources User:Kullwarrior

Bias?[edit]

(C8A1) "The improved C8A1 (Diemaco C8FT) is essentially the same as the C7A1, just in carbine form, and is currently the best carbine in the world."

i dont edit wikipedia, but i think this is obviously a personal opinion. would someone take care of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.251.82 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely personal opinion, doesn't belong here. Fixed AnayaDa (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands[edit]

Given that of the nine forces mentioned, five of them are the four branches of the military of the Netherlands plua the Marine Corps, wouldn't it make more sense to combine these as 'military of the Netherlands', much like was done with Denmark? SeverityOne (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Armies[edit]

I am the only one who notices the heartily unencyclopedic tone of the entire Foreign Armies section?--99.250.177.248 (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Weapon origin:Please stop vandalizing[edit]

The C7 was a joint Colt/Diemaco project, and as such is a joint U.S./Canadian venture, much like the SCAR is a Belgian/U.S. origin weapon and the HK416 is a German/U.S. origin weapon. Please stop removing the U.S. from the list of origin countries. It is very plain that both the U.S. and Canada had an equal share in the development and requirements of the C7. I'm pretty sure to continue to just flat out remove the U.S. from the list without discussing it here on the discuss page constitutes vandalism. Tominator93 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


There is continuing vandalism on this page.

Is there any way to get a moderator involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.61.58 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Table[edit]

I don't know who made the table of weapons and their designations, but the C9 is not a rifle developed or manufactured by Diemaco or colt nor is it part of the m16/C7/C8 family of weapons. The C9 is a light support weapon made by la Fabrique Nationale de Herstal in Belgium and is used by the Canadian Forces as a squad support weapon(like the m249 in the American Army). since this is the case, please delete the C9 part of the table in order to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.213.15 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This got added in the last 2 weeks and then went unnoticed because of the absurd back and forth over the "origin" of the weapon. Someone should change it back to N/A as it originally was. The C9 is the Canadian designation for the Minimi and someone obviously got confused at the term "LSW" and put it in there under Canada, not understanding the purpose of the table. It was definitely not in the table to begin with, so lets not hold me accountable (the maker of the original table). -- Thatguy96 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it back to N/A. I didn't notice the change actually until I saw it mentioned on the talk page. I presume there are no objections? RWJP (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No objections here.

And on the matter of the revert war about the origins of the C7, I actually agree that the best course of action might be to either list the country of origin as "N/A", or just remove the listing altogether.


What do you guys think of this? Tominator93 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The revert war over the origin of the C7 is ridiculous, it was Colt/Diemaco who joint designed the gun. No need to change anything there... RWJP (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In which case there will be no problem providing a source that meets Wikipedia:Verifiability. TangoSixZero (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There. I cited it. In the WorldGuns article, it details how Diemaco purchased license to produce the rifle from Colt USA. Tominator93 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Design/Engineering Authority for C7/M16[edit]

I've been hearing some noise about who is the design/engineering authority of the C7 rifle. It is Colt (USA). Diamaco had the license to build a version of the M16 called the C7. I was the Quality and Technical Services Officer, Canadian Armed Forced Technical Services Agency, 301st. Our detachment was located in Kitchener, Ontario and our sub-detachment was located in the Diemaco Plant. At one point, I was the Acting Detachment Quality Manager overlooking our group at Diemaco. One interesting difference between the M16 and the C7 was the barrel for the C7. It was chromed to increase life. The logistics of the rifle was to replace parts when they have worn out as quickly and effortlessly as possible. However, CAF has a history of making their materiel last as long as possible, hence, the chrome. Unfortunately, every 1000th round would disintegrate as it left the muzzle. Not good for friendlies standing nearby. I remember one afternoon sitting in the dark with a bunch of people watching a bore scope monitor as it inspected every single millimeter of a slowly rotating barrel from one end to the other looking for clues to this problem. Torontofred (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)TorontoFred 29th March, 2010.

Incorrect information[edit]

"The C7 has, like the M16A2, a semi-automatic fire mode and a fully automatic mode." The M16A2 does not have fully automatic mode. It has burst and semi only.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The point you aim at, without a scope, and the point at which your bullet hits the exact point you aimed at is at 300 meters (330 yards / 900 feet), maximum effective (lethal) range is 1100 meters. the c79 scope can be set to 700 meters. and the luchtmobiele brigade (11th Dutch Air Manouvre Brigade) does use the Diemaco c8 / c8a1, its not standard issued but can be ordered if wanted.

For verification search the gun manuals, or the dutch militairy manual. The same stats are applied to all 50 cm / 20" barrels with 1/7 twist and the Colt Armalite receiver (afsluiter in dutch).

(I used to serve at the 11th) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.170.58 (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Swedish SOG[edit]

The armament of the SOG is classified information therefore there are no reliable sources for this claim and the only weapons that have been shown in official pictures are the Swedish AK5 and the G36 therefore I'll remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.121.108 (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)