Out of curiousity Cpl, how much of a difference is there between the C-7 and the M-16? I've heard that the former is a significantly superior weapon, to the extent of various Special Forces specifically choosing it over the M-16.Cpl Kendall wrote:The C-7 (Canadian M-16) is a decent weapon, though to light for my taste.
USA accidentaly sells nuke components
-
Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
-
Aaron
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10988
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
- Contact:
The most important differences are a stronger return spring and a better forward assist for the bolt. It's also fully automatic and (in my opinion) generally better constructed, using higher quality parts.Captain Seafort wrote: Out of curiousity Cpl, how much of a difference is there between the C-7 and the M-16? I've heard that the former is a significantly superior weapon, to the extent of various Special Forces specifically choosing it over the M-16.
Don't quote me but IIRC the barrel is heavier as well. Diemaco was only churning them out in small batches which usually implies better quality. 5.56 weapons have a tendency to need rebuilding or replacement every ten years or so thanks to the high pressures involved with the round and the CF has been pretty rigorous about that.
If the weapon has a serious problem, it's that it's a blowback design. Which means powder residue getting into the chamber is a major issue. So your constantly cleaning it, at least with the FN you could just clean it with boiling water.