The Best Assault Rifle.

plan_D · 10-26-2005, 10:36 AM

Okay. I'll have to look into it more ...but at the moment, I'm still plugging for the AK-47.

102first_hussars · 10-26-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nonskimmer

Quote:

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

Well the Canadian c7 is a variant of the M-16A2 but its an all steel furniture.

All steel? Since when? Is there an A3 variant I don't know about? Every example I've ever seen has been built like the American M-16. The magazines are steel though, where I believe the American ones are plastic, but otherwise I think the major components are near identical in construction.

The C-7 that we use now is steel guts and barrel with plastic furniture but thats the C-7A1, The first C7(all Steel except for the stock) we used from 1984-1993 then replaced it with the A1. If you ever see the Documentry
"Rocks At Whiskey Trench" you will see canadian soldiers holding an M-16 with a Carrying Handle and an odd looking magazine, thats the one Im talking about.

102first_hussars · 10-26-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

How reliable though is it? It's all well and good that it has all that but if it jams ...it's useless. If it's designed for cold ...what about when you take it to the desert?

The AK-47 is the best, it's got the hitting power and it's reliable.

Its very reliable, have never used an ak myself so I wouuldnt know which is better, however I taken It to the Alberta Badlands for training and she didnt foul once.

Nonskimmer · 10-26-2005, 05:38 PM

I've handled the C7 and C7A1, and the only real difference is the picatinny rail and back-up hard sight on the A1. It's otherwise the exact same rifle, furniture and all. There's just as much plastic on the original.

In fact, in the Navy we usually only get to use the original with the carry handle, or the C8. The C7A1's almost all go to the Army.

102first_hussars · 10-26-2005, 05:50 PM

Maybe theres a different name for it but I know that I have used the thing.

102first_hussars · 10-26-2005, 05:59 PM

Ok NS, I am basically quoting from a book that I have in my lap

" The Colt M-16A2 Developed in collaboration with the Diemco of Canadawas based upon the M16A2 rifle, it has a heavier barrel, larger and stronger fore-end. the lenth of the rifle was about 38in long weighed close to six Kilograms like I said earlier "It was a heavy Bastard"

Nonskimmer · 10-26-2005, 07:05 PM

Yeah, I'd always heard that the heavier barrel of the C7 was later incorperated into later production M-16A2's and A3's in the States as well, but I wouldn't know if that's actually the case. Could be. Why the hell not, eh?

102first_hussars · 10-26-2005, 08:24 PM

Yeah why not?

102first_hussars · 10-26-2005, 08:36 PM

K guys lets keep in mind that the Ak-47 though very reliable and Powerful cant shoot further than Sadams Dick. The M-16A2 Is alot more reliable than the original M-16 and more effective ammo has been developed for it as well. Ive also mentiond The Stainles steel Canadian C-7 which I found extremely reliable against Dirt sand and mud so lets all be opend minded about this. PD I did put the FN-FAL up there but I Marked it as The Austrian Steyr.

plan_D · 10-27-2005, 02:18 AM

You tart - the FN-FAL is the base rifle of many alterations and improvements from the many nations ....like the SLR was the British version of the FN-FAL - different rifle. FN-FAL is Belgian ...and why no SLR?

trackend · 10-27-2005, 06:17 AM

I did'nt think the FN was anything special.

102first_hussars · 10-27-2005, 10:03 AM

Yeah the FN was peice of ****, yeah it used the powerfull 7.62 round the rifle constantly jammed, I wasnt around when canada used it but my NCO's were and they dont have alot of nice things to say about it.

trackend · 10-27-2005, 10:27 AM

I have used one & as I say it's nothing special.

Glider · 10-27-2005, 12:41 PM

Sorry but I believe that the FN's record is exemplary. An awful lot of countries bought it (about 70) and about 10 countries bought licence's to manufacture it. I find it hard to believe so many countries would have made a mistake. Even the German army wanted to use it but the Belgians would sell them a licence to build their own so Germany went a different route.
The Australian Army used it in conjunction with the M16 in Vietnam and the result was an even split, some prefering the rate of fire and lighter weight of the M16 others prefering the accuracy, stopping power and reliability of the FN.
102 I don't know why the Canadian ones had problems. I know that the heavy barreled versions designed to fire on automatic had problems but that was more to do with the power of the cartridge. Could that have been the problem?

102first_hussars · 10-27-2005, 03:32 PM

It had great qualities to it but it had alot of drawbacks, It was accurate, powerfull, Light, and easy to master but the drawbacks like I said were the fact it was an unreliable weapon, those qualities are useless if the dam weapon doesnt fire.

Now Im sure the reasons for so many countries buying the weapon was because 1. they were cheap 2. Most of the Weapons they had could not measure up to the days need of and assault rifle. and 3. If anyone was to ever blindly purchase a weapon from somebody it would be from Fabrique Nationale, cause they are known for exceptionaly fine weapons quality.