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).

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.

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.

Some smoovbrain reported his channel a few years back and he had to start over. I agree completely.

As a Canadian, I sure hope not lol

A case of Molson Golden eh!

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.

Since his death, his rails are all severely outdated. But back in the day he was cutting edge

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)

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.

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.

That was my first rifle. AR-15A2 Sporter II

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! 😜

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.

These were actual issue rifles for the two countries

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.

I would think you could find the. They still issue them but green instead of black

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.

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

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?

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.

What would Canuck Stoner do? Free float 605 ILGS with OD furniture, Canuck telestock.

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.

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.

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.

Same. I wanted to do a C7A1 Clone

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!

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 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.

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.

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.

I saw an American version on Brownells sight.

Yeah broh, Brownells has their own version for only $200!

Small aperture, that far away. Don’t think so

Possible, that is around the length of the rail in 7.258 in v 7.480 normal 19cm conversion. Very possible

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.

No sir. Powder has not burned enough at the chamber. Powder reaches its peak temperature at this point in the barrel

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.

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).

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

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

Yeah, it's always just as simple as "not designed here" please.