The C7 Assault Rifle, M16, & AR15 family (C7A1, C7A2, C7 replacment, and C7 vs M16)

[KevinB]

Its a hard question to answer.

M995 AP 5.56mm rocks - it chews plates, cars etc.  It does make a small .224 hole in Mr. Target though.

Keep in mind USSOC issue ESAPI plate will take 6 rounds of 7.62x54R API-T or equivalent 7.62N or 30-06 ammo.

5.56mm ammuntion benifts from a lot more R&D being done on it in the last 20 years -- improved 7.62 rounds exist, but not in an issue format as of yet.--

 

 

[Trooper Hale]

I wouldnt normally comment on this page but.
I6, i know its going to be an obvious question but i cant remember you saying it before, do you think that, for putting holes into Mr. Target, 7.62/.308 is an outdated round? I've recently been reading about the politic's behind the British .280 and the picking of 7.62 and i've found it really quite facinating. That rounds around the .280 mark are making a bit of a comeback, 50 years after the struggle for the round, is quite interesting i think.

 

[KevinB]

M80 ball certainly is outdated.  There are more modern combinations rounds (like SS109) for 7.62 - that upset earlier in human tissue, and yet provide better AP ability for armor, and medium barriers.
That said -- you dont want to hump several hundred rounds of 7.62 for a rifle...

I think if NATO had adopted the EM-2 in .280 it would likely still be issued in some sort of A8 revision with a rail system and advanced optical sight.

7x46 designed by Chris Murray when he was at AMU (he is off working to Triple Canopy in Iraq now) was designed as the optimal should fired personal weapon round, without contraints to the M16FOW architecture.
  6.8x43 (SPC) and 6.5x39 (Grendel) where constrained by the platform.

There is no free lunch...
  More round equals, more weight, and more recoil.

Changing platforms or cartridges results in logistical issues at the very least.

I still beleive that a mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons can get the job done, and the biggest improvements would result from better training, and more ammunition for training.

 

[starseed]

I have a couple of questions I haven't seen answered here yet, though I'll admit I stopped reading at about page 30. Forgive me if flog the poor horse a couple more times...

First, I've read and heard various, possibly apocryphal stories about what actually happens when a 5.56 round impacts on flesh, particularly on "skinnies" back in Somalia, if you'll forgive the term. I've often heard that the round will simply go right through a thin target without tumbling or generating the massive flesh wounds they're designed to, even that in terms of pure stopping power, if not lethality, 5.56 is sometimes more effective against a target wearing body armor (or fat people?). Is there any truth to this?

Naturally, I'd really like to hear from someone who's seen and knows first hand whether this is a frequent problem in the Sandbox. To clarify, I'm asking if at the typical (if there is such a thing) range you're engaging at in Afghanistan, it is anything other than unusual to see timmy get hit (excluding superficial wounds of course) and continue fighting - after all it can't be expected that every shot will be ideally placed for an instant kill.

According to this source - http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm at least (no idea how reputable or accurate it is, I know little about ballistics), a 5.56 round will have lost nearly half its kinetic energy by 500 yards (458m). (EDIT: While this is still true of a 7.62 round, 7.62 has the energy to spare, hitting with roughly the same energy at 600y that a 5.56 round does at 100...from above source).

It seems unlikely to me that many engagements take place at this range, but even at lower distances, the loss in energy is significant enough that I'd like more information heh. Not that there is much to be done about it, short of volunteering to hump the C6, but better to have the knowledge than not..

Also, this thread has obviously been going for awhile...around page 25 or so I believe I read there was talk and even some experimentation with Designated Marksmen at the platoon level. If this is correct, is this still going on, is it a standard practice now, and if so, are they using a variant of a C7/8 or something else entirely?

Thanks in advance!

 

[KevinB]

This topic has been hashed and rehashed to death.

1) the biggest complaints on 5.56mm in Somalia was from MSG Paul Howe, they had both CAR-15 (11.5") and M4 (14.5") rifles, as well as ammunition specifically for those short barrel guns, however when they ran out, they had to take ammuntion from the Ranger, and ammuntion dropped by Little Bird, both of which was M855, which is not ideal in short guns, especially in longer distances.
  other members of the troop involved have not complained, and some dismiss Paul's complaints.

2) C77 and M855 are NOT ideal rounds for smaller statured peoples, especially in short barrel guns.  This is the reason that USNSWC Crane had the Optimized 5.56mm round developed.  As well some entites run carbine 7.62 NATO guns.
  That said for the most part if you do your part and get good hits, the ammo does its job, with the caveat that nothing handheld is 100%.  There are cases of pers hit with 25mm HEI and 40mm HEDP have kept coming.

3) Bullet placement is much more important than bullet construction

4) Wound profiles are usually velocity dependant, but don't mistake impact energy with an effective impact.  the human body is very resiliant, bullets that fragment can cause massive damage, but bullets that do not, will sail harmlessly (well relatively) thru the body, unless they strike a bone, or major blood vessle.

Any more questions?

 

[KevinB]

There are some ballistics threads elsewhere that have some good info.

The one thing you will note as you see bullet results, no round acts the same in every incident, you can hit a target at the same range in the same spot one time, and the next time it can have different results.

 

[sm1lodon]

So, in brief, the likelihood that the 5.56 will go away any time soon is unlikely because:
A) It is very proven
B) It is in very wide use
C) it provides satisfactory performance at the distances in which most combat is presently taking place, especially with proper training to place shots where they are most likely to incapacitate and kill
D) It is light and compact enough to enable the individual warfighter to carry quite a large number of rounds, especially when compared to the 7.62mm NATO round
E) It has a fairly flat trajectory
F) It has low recoil, thus contributing to more effective weapon control, especially in multiple-round bursts.

 

[dinicthus]

Something to keep in mind is that the basic design is around 40 years old. To me, that says quite a bit about the M16‘s design and subsequent modifications.

The B52 and Chinook come to mind. If it ain't broke...

 

[CAL19ACO]

Actually, I'm not sure of your source, but everything I've ever read suggests that the addition of three-round burst to the M16 was a reaction to the sheer volume of ammunition consumed by US soldiers in Vietnam not exercising sound fire discipline and dumping whole magazines of unaimed fire.  Refer to the pics of guys holding their M16s over top of fire trenches and spraying haphazard for an example.

The C7 family is based not on the A2, but actually on the A1.  That's why they have A1 sights on the iron model.  IIRC the actual design it's taken from is Colt Model 735 (or maybe it's 715), also known as the M16A1E3.

The M14 was originally born out of the US Army's led held and out dated view about long range aimed fire, despite coming to the same conclusions as the soviets after the second world war in regards to average combat distances and impact of number of rounds fired. When combat experience showed them that the M14 and it ammo were to heavy, they turned to a variant of one the rifle that had competed against the M14 for adoption (AR-10). they found that the AR-15's light weight and light ammo allowed troops to carry 3 times as much ammo for the same total weight of weapon and ammo. This and the AR-14/XM16's mild recoil thanks to the inline stock allowed the weapon to be fired accurately in automatic bursts unlike the M14 which for the AVERAGE soldier was very hard to control. Unfortunately between the ability to carry a lot more ammo (combat loads of up to 1000 rounds) and the controllable automatic fire gave the some troops the impression that they could spray with the M16; and when in the hands of a nervous sorta welled train grunt in the jungles of Vietnam, a lot of ammo tended to be wasted. The US armed forces also found that in the hands of a more experienced soldier, they only tended to fire in bursts of 2-5 bullets and a time if they used automatic fire at all.
After the Vietnam war the M16A1 was continually updated until the M16A2 came along; the A2 variant had a different hand guard (same one as the C7), tighter rifling twist and modified sights. The three round burst was chosen because of the tendency for troops to spray when under fire, and because they found a three round burst to be the best combination of accuracy and ammo conservation. Even at that, most troops are still trained to use there M16's in semi-auto "unless they have a damn good reason".
The C7 was the result of the urging of a CF liaison officer to the USMC who had tried out both the M16A1 and early version of the M16A2. The C7 and the C7A1 more so are a combination of M16 features and new innovation. the C7 is based of the Colt model 715: it featured the hand-guards, barrel profile and buttstock of the A2, while retaining the automatic fire trigger group, and rear sight  of the A1. later the C7A1 variant featured a weaver optics rail instead of the carry handle iron sight, and featured slightly heavier cold hammer forged barrel which according to Diemaco is more durable and accurate than the M16A2's barrel. the A2 variant features a carbine collapsible buttstock, and a piccatinny top rail and TRAID mount.
as far as future development is concerned, there are two main things i would like to see in the future A3 variant of the C7, the first is the standardization of a full attachment rail front handguard, most people would think to go with a KAC M5 RAS, but those are heavy and would make the C7 even more front heavy, i would instead go for something lighter like the Magpul MOE handguard, which allows the user to add as much or as little rail space as need and would like make the weapon more balanced.

 

[MikeL]

there are two main things i would like to see in the future A3 variant of the C7, the first is the standardization of a full attachment rail front handguard, most people would think to go with a KAC M5 RAS, but those are heavy and would make the C7 even more front heavy, i would instead go for something lighter like the Magpul MOE handguard, which allows the user to add as much or as little rail space as need and would like make the weapon more balanced.

Adding a KAC RAS to the C7 will not make it front heavy.. how do I know this?  I've used the M5 RAS on my C7 before, and it didn't make the weapon front heavy, unbalanced or too heavy to handle comfortably.  A number of Canadians have used a KAC RAS on their C7/C8 no problem, and from what I've seen all CANSOFCOM uses the KAC RAS and it seems too be just fine for all of them and the US Military as well.

 

[CAL19ACO]

This topic has been hashed and rehashed to death.

1) the biggest complaints on 5.56mm in Somalia was from MSG Paul Howe, they had both CAR-15 (11.5") and M4 (14.5") rifles, as well as ammunition specifically for those short barrel guns, however when they ran out, they had to take ammuntion from the Ranger, and ammuntion dropped by Little Bird, both of which was M855, which is not ideal in short guns, especially in longer distances.
  other members of the troop involved have not complained, and some dismiss Paul's complaints.

2) C77 and M855 are NOT ideal rounds for smaller statured peoples, especially in short barrel guns.  This is the reason that USNSWC Crane had the Optimized 5.56mm round developed.  As well some entites run carbine 7.62 NATO guns.
  That said for the most part if you do your part and get good hits, the ammo does its job, with the caveat that nothing handheld is 100%.  There are cases of pers hit with 25mm HEI and 40mm HEDP have kept coming.

3) Bullet placement is much more important than bullet construction

4) Wound profiles are usually velocity dependant, but don't mistake impact energy with an effective impact.  the human body is very resiliant, bullets that fragment can cause massive damage, but bullets that do not, will sail harmlessly (well relatively) thru the body, unless they strike a bone, or major blood vessle.

Any more questions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#M855A1
the new M855A1 round seems to have solved the problem in insufficient muzzle velocity in 14.5 barrel carbines that was leading to lower kinetic energy and stopping power.

 

[CAL19ACO]

Adding a KAC RAS to the C7 will not make it front heavy.. how do I know this?  I've used the M5 RAS on my C7 before, and it didn't make the weapon front heavy, unbalanced or too heavy to handle comfortably.  A number of Canadians have used a KAC RAS on their C7/C8 no problem, and from what I've seen all CANSOFCOM uses the KAC RAS and it seems too be just fine for all of them and the US Military as well.

i have no personal experience with the C7 but i'm just going by what a few serving friends and serving forum members have said about the C7A2 being a bit front heavy and i also know from experience that a KAC RAS/RIS forearm is a fair bit heavier than a standard ribbed forearm.

 

[KevinB]

Don't beleive all of what you read on the M855A1 round -- your pushing beyond proof pressure on every round -- its great for gun manufacturers as you can sell replacement bolts by the truckload now...
    Better ammo exists that does not cause decreased lifespan and reliability decreases.

Keep in mind the RIS/RAS was adopted over 10 years ago.  We and the rest of industry have come a long way in handguard design.
  Freefloat rails that are lighter than the standard plastic foreend - with rail where you need it - not everywhere.
But as I have both a M16A4 with out with M5RAS here in the office - I can tell you the difference in weight is actually negligable.
4.510lbs with plastic foreend
4.820 with M5 RAS - a difference of less than 1/2 a lb, for greater than 30% increase in cooling, and rather unlimited accessory mounting.
For interests sake a M16A4 with URX front handguard weighs:  4.650
  An a M16A4 with lowprofile gas block and URX3.1 weights 4.485lbs.

Albiet the new US Army FRAK (Forward Rail Accessory Kit) soliciation requires rail running the length of the handguard...

 

[Snaketnk]

i have no personal experience with the C7 but i'm just going by what a few serving friends and serving forum members have said about the C7A2 being a bit front heavy and i also know from experience that a KAC RAS/RIS forearm is a fair bit heavier than a standard ribbed forearm.

What makes the C7 front heavy is the fact we only have rails mounted on the gas block, and all our accessories typically hang from that. It's much much more tolerable if the stuff gets mounted closer to the reciever by add-on rails, which have a myriad of problems already.

 

[MikeL]

Had some free time at work a few days ago and search the DIN,  found a power point presentation outlining the changes/improvements to Canadian Small Arms,  sounds like there is interest in replacing the plastic handguards with a RAS for the C7/C8,  new sights, plastic magazines, new sling, etc

I used the search word "C7A3" and it was one of the first links that came up.

 

[aesop081]

search the DIN.............  found

Someone searched the DIN and found something ...........Holy s**t !!!

 

[Bzzliteyr]

That happens?  You wouldn't believe how hard it was to find "military justice at the summary trial level"!! Oh wait, I never actually did find it.

 

[MikeL]

After the DIN failed me 20 times before on other occasions,  it was bound to work for me once.

 

[KevinB]

That happens?  You wouldn't believe how hard it was to find "military justice at the summary trial level"!! Oh wait, I never actually did find it.

There is no justice in a summary trial...

 

[shane2two]

What`s this I hear about "cook offs" ? I`ve yet to fire a C7 and have never heard of such a thing until today. So yeah, what`s a cook off?