Talk:Colt Canada C7 and C8

Diemaco LSW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias?

(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

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

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)