What Army service rifle do I prefer? | Canadian C7A2 or British L85A2
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- What Army service rifle do I prefer? Canadian C7A2 or British L85A2? I love them both! But...... take a watch.
The SA80 (Small Arms for the 1980s) is a British family of 5.56×45mm NATO service weapons used by the British Army. The L85 Rifle variant has been the standard issue service rifle of the British Armed Forces since 1987, replacing the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle. The first prototypes were created in 1976, with production of the A1 variant starting in 1985 and ending in 1994. The A2 variant came to be as the result of a significant upgrade in the early 2000s by Heckler & Koch and remains in service as of 2020. The A3 variant was first issued in 2018 with several new improvements.
The C7A2 automatic rifle is the personal weapon used by the Canadian Armed Forces. It is hand-held, shoulder-controlled, and capable of single or automatic fire. The C7A2 automatic rifle is a light weight weapon which is air-cooled, gas-operated, and magazine-fed. It can be easily disassembled by the user for inspection and cleaning.
The C7A2 automatic rifle is an evolutionary or mid-life program upgrade from the C7 and C7A1 rifle variants. The upgrade is equipped with ambidextrous controls, low infrared signature and an extendable butt. In addition, the rifle can be fitted with a bayonet for close combat.
Its primary sighting system is an optical sight, which is supplemented by an adjustable front sight and an adjustable backup sight.
Hope you enjoy!!
💥 💣 Check out our partnership clothing brand! Attire For Effect💣 💥 www.attireforeffect.com 📸 Also follow them on Instagram: # attire_for_effect
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.co...
💰PayPal: paypal.me/Mats...
Matt’s DREAM: www.gofundme.c...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: Matthew James 210A - 12A Street N Suite No. 135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
📸 My instagram: Matt_matsimus
🎮 Twitch: / matsimus_9033
👋DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: www.facebook.c...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming
💥 💣 Check out our partnership clothing brand! Attire For Effect💣 💥 www.attireforeffect.com
They're not really the same weapon as the British design is exactly as you describe more of a *"machine pistol"* than an actual combat rifle. I cannot speak to the Canadian service rifle so it's interesting to hear your take. The hunting guides up that definitely loved their 7mm tho so I've never forgotten that!
Great Britain will be learned to have a proper service rifle at some point as the reason why I loved the USA M16 and all variants was the iron sights so it was just amazing as a quick point and shoot *"performance rifle"* and thus an easy learner. As one moved up to say an M249 SAW or beyond that to the 240G full on crew served or even the Mk-19 "machine gun for hand grenades" everything was all pretty much the same as far as sighting. Basically all were rifles. The only weapon I absolutely detested was the M-9 Beretta Pistol which if the US Army really was serious about making a bad ass officer culture they absolutely would have armed them with the British Bull-pup I'd totally go there.
The M-4 Carbine...again just another M16 which made it again a great weapon.
It would be nice if all of NATO could at least agree upon one standard issue combat rifle in point of fact as the USA has literally *MILLIONS* of M16s just sitting in storage let alone I imagine have be been seen regular combat use over the past 20 plus Years of near constant fighting.
Anyhow at least they agreed on a standardized ammo type which is no small matter.
It sounds like your ideal C7A2 is actually just an M16A4 with an adjustable stock kit installed. That's what USMC uses in boot camp, now. Collapsing stock, H6 buffer kit, 20" barrel, KAC rail handguard, ACOG, and PEQ-15 in actual service for night fighting.
I think the trirail is a bit silly, super far out and when you do put stuff on there it's not as convenient to activate.
Also, have you actually looked at the Colt Canada M203A1? It's a way worse version of the normal M203. It has a mount, and then connects the receiver to that mount. That's why it's lower than American M203s hanging off the rifle. For US M203s, that mount is also the receiver. Canadian M203s weigh more empty than American M203s weigh loaded.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 totally forgot about the M203. That's what I actually deployed to combat with to include just the most amazing number and type of grenade ammo it was actually quite funny. Very impressive visually tho so made for great deterrent effect! Definitely can't stand collapsible butt stock. That's a no go for me anyways.
Why dont you go in to acting? your face and body areso squared and sharp lines you do excellent as the hero guy!
Everyone know the AR15 design of rifle is hugely successful and proven worldwide and everyone knows the L85 Design is not.
So.. What can we deduce from these statistics and your failure to mention these facts?
Diemaco (Colt Canada) made really good guns. Colt USAs QC really dropped off for a while. Part of the reason why they lost their military contracts to FN.
Colts QC dropped off after they lost the contract to FN not before
Now that CZ own Colt that might change
@@firestorm165 One would hope.
Colt is being run by idiots.
@@richardcontinijr9661 sad to see American companies bite the dust due to corporate gluttony and greed.
OK. I used the original L85A1 and everybody agreed it was crap. More recently the A2 version has won people over, especially because of appreciating the 20" barrel. Realistically the 5.56 needs that 20" barrel.
i agree with you the A1 its a great rifle for basic training cause u learn how to deal with stoppages and your drills get spot on
the A2 once you get one at your unit is a dream. it rarely has any stoppages . and for me it was a tack driver
Sorry but I gotta disagree with you on the point that 5.56 needs a 20” barrel especially with modern loadings for typical engagement distances a 14.5” or even a 11.3” barrel is more than sufficient
@@loneyager5577 "typical engagement distances". LOL.
@@loneyager5577 I can see why you say that... and 11.3 is more than sufficient.. however 20" is better
@@loneyager5577 are you on drugs ? go and read belistics reports on short barrel 5.56mm ! 14.5 is too short end of
Accuracy of all of the L85s was brilliant. A2 was reliable. Fantastic rifle.
Logistically, if you need to upgrade or get spare parts for the C7/AR-15, it would be easier to supply overseas since so many countries have adopted an AR-15 style rifle.
I don't think I agree, these are state militaries we're talking about, they're not worrying about parts compatibility, they get things right from the factory, they can just ask the manufacturer for custom built solutions and be fine to be the only customers of a hyper specific part. It doesn't really matter to the British military that they are the only users of L85s, they still went and asked HK to redesign half the parts inside the thing and they still did it.
Coming from the Royal Danish Army, trained with the H&K G3 as a recruit, the Diemaco C7A1 as a trooper and several deployments with the C8FTHB and I had the pleasure of running the L85A2 on a few international training missions, in my opinion I'd pick the C8FTHB or L85A2 for the manuverbilty/CQB, the G3 for stopping power and long range shooting, the C7A1 while slightly more accurate then the C8FTHB, it is more front heavy and unbalanced.
For me it would come down to what mission I was going on.
But for 98% of missions I'd pick the L85A2 or C8FTHB of the rifles that I've used
Really! And you served as what? (Kald mig en skeptisk veteran fra 00'erne)
C8 is hard to beat.
I started in my conscription with the m/96 in the engineers, then upgraded to the m/10 when I went to Bornholm with the recce boys. Loved both, but m/10 is 100% my preference.
The United States Marines operated the M-16A2 in my day with a full 20 inch barrel but we had iron sights. I was still able to hit 9 bullseyes out of 10 rounds fired at 500 yards from the prone on a man sized target with it. I'm quite certain that the Canadian C7, with that excellent optic mounted, will get the job done. Good on You!!
I prefer the FNC1A1 for stopping power, but when we transitioned to the C7 it was OK. Once they put the optical sight on the C7 I always removed it and used the iron battle sights and still scored higher than most using the scope.
@@davidhamilton6612 Why would "stopping power" of FNC be any different to C7? They are firing the same cartridge.
@@wurzel9671 you are such an ID10T. The FN C1A1 fires 7.62mm and the C7 fires 5.56mm, so they don't fire the same cartridge.
@@davidhamilton6612 damn rude, the tarded way you wrote it was a little bit confusing, the space bar exists
@@wurzel9671 aw, poor little muffin got his feelings hurt.
As an American who served in the U.S. Marines. It's interesting to read all the experience from fellow military men from different nation's. My first rifle was the Colt M16A2 which is a very accurate and reliable rifle. Later on I trained with, carried and used the Colt M4 Carbine. For me all around general purpose I'd always choose the M4. I have some experience in training with and shooting the AKM (AK-47) so that would be my solid 2nd choice in a go to rifle.
I'm going to throw my 2 pence in on this. I was recently on exchange with the Aussies and was issued their F88E (Steyr AUG) with ACOG and RMR sight, an integrated 40mm GLA. full auto fire trigger lockout and what a great rifle. it has excellent accuracy out to 300 yards, good balance (even with the GLA), and its compact size is awesome. and it can be configured to be fired for left handers or Left eye dominate shooters. The F88E platform is light years ahead of our L85a1 and C7/M4 /16, and If I had a choice, it would be the F88E for me.
It's a variant of the Steyr AUG
@@spdfatomicstructure Yeah but a lot better, check it out mate- it cacks over the L85A3 and front heavy C7/8
@@exsap312 I owned a bullpup as a soldier as well. SAR 21. The basic model has both an integral 1.5x scope and an integral laser pointer
@@spdfatomicstructure Bro, SAR-21 is a sad excuse for a service rifle: the 1.5x optic has way too narrow FOV, short relief and sits quite high over the bore, the Laser Aiming Device makes the handguard very bulky and it needs 2x AA cells (when other military laser/light illuminators only use 1x CR123A or AA), not to mention the proprietary magazine is not shareable with the SAW gunners now as compared to when Infantry units were using the M16S1. My unit was training and using M16S1 rifles even as of 2016.
@@SpecJack15 the LAD actually needs only one AA battery
I'm a bit older than you Matt I served with the Royal Marines and was using the SLR and I loved it when the SA 80 came out I hated it but when it was upgraded it made a big difference as far as the C7 A2 I loved it and the shorter C8 but I'm definitely a diehard SLR fan, interestingly the US are now going to the Sig M5 which is going back to a higher powered round, great video thanks
I'm sure someone will decide to use something like the GD bullpup design though. Maybe from a more experienced small arms supplier.
Also a fan of the SLR, hated the change to the L85a1. . The ones we got were terrible and our csm was shooting tighter groupings at all ranges with the SLR, I would be interested to see a comparison with thr SLR and the newer A3s as they are supposed to be the most accurate of the SA80 series.
@@johnfarscape that would be interesting especially with the SLR fitted with the trilux (or even something more up to date) I liked it even though it had the upside down reticle which did take a bit of getting used to)
@@hachimanjiro The L129 Sharpshooter rifle issued around the middle of our time in Afghanistan was a bit of a hybrid there. A 7.62mm rifle with a 8x ACOG sight, problem was soldiers were not used to the recoil from a 7.62 rifle so we (those of us who'd used SLR) had to train them to expect/accept the recoil and not flinch as the round was fired. Have to say it was fun firing a 7.62 rifle again but the 8x ACOG was shite!
@@darthsarcastus1064 I would have loved to got my hands on one them,I did get to fire an M110 (which is basically 20inch barrelled rather than the 16inch,they are both based on the original AR10 platform) they changed the optic for a 6x trijicon on the sharpshooter's rifle and a higher magnification Schmidt and Bender on the "sniper support rifle" which (I heard) were much better, there are so many semi auto rifles out there in 7.62x51 that I'd love to shoot H&K 417, scar heavy amongst others
Ive shot the SA80 back in the day. The newest upgrade looks absolutely smashing
After going through the upgrade from the C7A1 to the C7A2, I became VERY aware of how front heavy it was. Tack driver from the prone, particularly if you ignore the pam and monopod off the magazine (which it WAS designed to do) but reloading from prone was a struggle - the muzzle was always trying to eat dirt. The first time I handled a bullpup years afterwards, I immediately fell in love with the balance and length. You spend a lot more time rucking and maneuvering with a rifle than you do shooting it, so it's a bigger advantage than people give it credit for.
When I heard in 1986 that the L85(SA80) rifle was going to cost half the price of the L1a1 (SLR) rifle, alarm bells started to ring.
Due to the forty modifications to the L85 (even before the HKa2 update) cost nineteen times more than the each L1a1 rifle.
Why did they not just buy a shit loads M16s? I remember reading that they cost 400 dollars at the time. I think that would have been a a saving. Mod procurement strikes again.
@@spiderdog762 or deferring procurement to the late 90s and then buying shitloads of G36s
@@spdfatomicstructure Or C7s from Diemaco.
@@helbent4 that would be under the "shitloads of M16s" in the initial reply
@@spdfatomicstructure True, if technically correct. But they are noticeably different enough that "M16" doesn't usually mean C7, or for that matter HK416 (which is loosely derived from the M16). It's like calling a LAV-25, Stryker, or Bison a "Piranha".
The FNC1A1 is all that I ever needed. Especially with the match trick!
Hi Mat firstly, great channel. I was lucky enough to serve in the British Infantry for several years. I joined at just the right time. Did my basic with the SMG as vehicle crew, then to the SLR before the introduction of the SA80 A1 then the A2 with a Glock side arm. But I was also trained on the Gpmg, Lsw and the Browning Highpower. The moral of this story is if you're young and want to shoot pistols in the UK join the forces. Regular, Reserves or the Cadets. Keep up the good work. All the best and thank you for your service. Al🍻
I will say, I do love my A2. Smooth as butter to shoot.
I used the cadet gp (hated it lol), but in my short time in the army i used the L85a1, which i did love. But never had the issue of the brass bouncing into my face, instead my cocking handle sent it straight back into the weapon. But still loved the feel of the weapon
I;m a lefty, but I easily learned to fire rifles both ways. Needed to, while on patrol even numbers, in the file, aimed to the left, holding their rifles as a right handed, while the others did the opposite. Also, since childhood my left eye was weak compared to my right, to aim I had to hold the rifle as a right handed person. Not hard, it is training and practice.
Same, I learned right handed due to my Machine Gunner on the C6. It also avoids the hot brass down the front of your shirt. The deflector did not always work on the C7
@@ferociousfil5747 I heard about that deflector situation. I never got to fire the C7 or C8, never mind the C6. When I got out CAF still used the FN1A1 as its main battle rifle.
@@MarcLombart I used the C1 with a barrel insert .22 cal for indoor range. Would of loved to fire it, everyone I served with some that have shot it and they all had a lot of good to say about it.
@@ferociousfil5747 it was hard on the shoulder at first
Me too, mostly left handed, but I use a weapon right handed, in my case naturally.
You never mentioned the SA80 excellent sling . I found the Ai and A2 to be extremely accurate.
the L85 is a comfortable rifle to hold, it's also great for CQC due to the shorter length, the barrel length isn't much shorter than the C7A2, as part of the CCF we had a range at school, I enjoyed working and shooting the L85A2
Trivia: in the old CF the C1A1 (FN FAL) was nicknamed the "FN".
One factor as to why the C7/C8 are such high quality is for decades the manufacturer was Diemaco (before being bought out by Colt Canada) and their manufacturing facilities were (and still are) far more advanced than that of Colt USA. Plus these weapons need to function reliably in arctic conditions. These are more than an American-made AR15 platform with Diemaco or Colt Canada stamped on the side, they are re-engineered under the licence to be the best the AR15 can offer with regards to a service rifle. The trade-off being they are expensive, around $3000/unit.
I've been a student and end-user of the AR-15 family of weapons since the 1980s. Diemaco rifles and carbines are as you say, especially regarding metallurgy and processes for the barrel and BCG. US can't crank out that quality in volumes required for the entire military, but could for SOCOM, so I wish they would adopt the critical parts of the Canadian TDP for SOCOM. Similar technical variances were done on the URGI uppers though.
ARDEC put out a paper on a new CNC bolt-peening process that doubles bolt life as well, so we seem to be moving into an area where much more durability can be mass-produced on critical parts.
The C1A1 was not "nicknamed" the FN, it WAS an FN built under contract in Canada.
@@davidhamilton6612 I can see why you are confused, a name can both be a proper name and a nickname in its own right. While "FN" is the initials for "Fabrique Nationale", the maker of the FN FAL, in the Canadian army "FN" also became synonymous specifically with the C1 and C1A1 rifles in a way it did not with the rest of the world. If you refer to "an FN" to a Militia (Reserve Force member) or some Militia (plural for reservists) they would know you are likely referring only to the C1 or C1A1, and not the FN C2/C2A1, FN "Hi-Power", FN C5 GPMG or FN C9 (Minimi). All of which are designed by FN but produced under licence in Canada. Therefore "FN" is both a proper name for the company of design and also the nickname of the C1 and C1A1 by Canadian soldiers (Reg Force or Militia). I hope this clarifies this.
@@davidhamilton6612 I still remember the days when the British Army, Royal Marines, and Canadian Army used L1A1 and C1A1 SLRs. The long barrel/flash hider combo was very distinct.
@@helbent4, if you were ever in the CF, reg or reserve forces, you would be well aware that all these weapons are referred to as FNC1, FNC2, etc. The letters FN were never used as a nick name. The nickname for the FN C2 was the SAW, the GPMG was the "pig" and the Hi-Power was referred to as the FN Hi-Power and the Browning Hi-Power. The FNC9 Minimi was referred to as the LMG and never as the Minimi.
I was in the Canadian infantry when we transitioned from the FNC1A1 to the c7a1, And I remember melting handguards. The old woodstock on the FN never got hot 😏
Nor would the chicolac furniture of the newer FN-FAL we were handed back in the early 80’s in the professional arm of the Dutch armed forces!
If you managed to get anything ‘hot’, that means you’re ruining your brl!
I MEI'd a load of L85A3s for the first time this week. I first saw prototypes at Pendine several years ago but hadn't yet seen any production examples. I have to say I was quite impressed. The whole thing actually feels fully like a quality item at long last. I wasn't sure about the loss of the access hatch to the gas parts, the entire handguard needing to be removed on the A3. However I've decided it's a vastly better arrangement than that on the original green furniture or the DD rail. A single captive screw is undone and the entire thing comes off with ease. Yep it all just looks and feels so much better than before, the H&K/Magpul rail system being far more comfortable in the handle even without rubber rail covers fitted.
Modern soldiers keep going on about how the L1A1 was a problem with AFVs to which i say rubbish. I served with 2 Royal Anglian in the early 70s using FV432s. The length of the SLR was not a problem what so ever. Also its length was not a problem in CQB. Its length was not a problem in any way. In fact i would say that modern body Armour would not stop a 7.62. Can the same be said about the 5.56 round. I have fired both and i would say that the SA80 is a nice rifle but the SLR is better. The only thing i can think of that makes the SA80 better is the rounds are lighter so more can be carried. With the 7.62 we carried 5 20 round mags and a 50 round bandolier and sometimes a 50 round belt for the section GPMG which was ample and not over heavy.
Currently using this in service, I notice the biggest different compare to the m16 is the barrel. It’s upgradedchrome plated gives it up to 3x barrel life.
Fun note, Colt Canada sold a big shipment of C8s to the SAS.
Yes, I hear they were greatly appreciated in the Falklands
@@Jack-uy7ie Must have shipped them in a time machine as the C8 did not exist until after the Falklands War.
@@drjamespotter My bad. I meant C7s
@@drjamespotter Do you know what year Diemaco started selling Carbines to UKSOF? My Recon Team Leader had a poster of some NATO SOF guy (likely SAS) in freefall with a Diemaco carbine jumped open/retained by the harness. That was in the 1990s.
That’s pretty well known. The Royal Marines have been using the c8 for a while now as well as 148 battery, 29 commando
The C7A2 is my absolute favourite assault rifle, the la85a2 is prob on my third behind the g36
C7A1 by far, never mind the -A2. The heavy barrel in combination with the Elcan sight was pretty accurate. Like the old FALs, they could take a beatin' in the field and still function.
And don't even get me started on the L85/ SA-80. We all know what a crap design it initially was- like Mat mentioned, brass in the face, constant stoppages, misfeeds, etc. It eventually took a complete redesign of some working parts by HK to work properly in the field. You know the old saying about certain roads being paved with good intentions.
It's like all the political favoritism and pork-barreling with the LSVW trucks. What a horrendous pile of shit those things are. Excessively noisy, grossly underpowered, metallic "tactical" brakes that can be heard a mile away out in the bush, starter solenoids causing engine fires, some genius putting the air intake for the box on the ambulance variant about 3-4 feet above the exhaust, and so on.
Great educational video about the pros and cons of the L85 and C7 rifles. I share your feelings about the current Canadian climate about firearms and how we cannot freely express them. Take care.
As someone who can't serve in either military I prefer the c7 system solely for the reason that I shoot left handed and the l85 system isn't convertible.
i used the L85A1 (SA80) for 14 years and i never had a problem with it
I transitioned from the C1 battle rifle to the C7. The C7 had better close range firepower at the expense of punch.
Ah good old C7 with iron sights!
Oof. I was effective with the C1.
I'm assuming the C1 was heavy for people, since it didn't contain NATO rounds which added extra weight?
@@vothbetilia4862 the calibre for the C1 is 7.62 NATO round yes a heavier round and weapon
The C1 had iron sights and took more range time to take advantage of its effective range. It is an infantryman's weapon.
I served 25 years in the CAF, I went through the C7, C7A1, and the C7A2. The A2 was such a big upgrade it made life alot easier
How is compared to the M10 varient we have in DK, somthing that sticks out to me when i see canadian riffles is the lack of picatiny and the plastic handguard
I grew up with the AR-15. I bought my first one when I was 10 years old for $275.00 IN 1978. That was a lot of money from collecting bottles, yard cleaning, and delivering newspapers. I saved every dollar and penny for 2 years. My Uncle who was a Vietnam veteran Paratrooper and infantryman taught me to take it apart, clean, and shoot it. Years later I went into the US Army for infantry and airborne. I did well with it. I had no problems with my service M16A1/A2/M4 because I was familiar with the system. Only bad blank ammunition was a problem to include that blank ammo was much more dirty during firing in training. Service ammunition absolutely no problems it worked well even doing live fire exercises in the desert. The tropics of Hawaii and Panama no problems. Winters of Germany and Alaska no problems with service ammo. The system has been in service now for over 50 years. I have 4 AR systems I own now and love them very much.
My love/hate relationship with the C7A2 is as you said, hated the nose heavyness of the rifle. But in the prone position, pure love. That thing is like a surgical laser for accuracy.
If the sight was dialed in, 200M targets where pure bliss through that little piece of glass.
I haven't used an L85 but I used the original SA80. Loved it. Yes it had some issues but it was a great platform. Very accurate and easy to get on target, great for small spaces and relatively easy to use one handed.
What is the difference between the two?
@@kiwigrunt330 mostly in material construction. The Sa80 had a big problem with things like the way the receiver and cover were made. If you held the cover too tightly it interfered with cycling. The metal was too thin and lacked strengthening ribs so it dented and bent so the ejection port would be misaligned. The firing pin was very brittle and would snap in two in a weird place and jammed the system and then it would be difficult to disassemble. And initial disassembly was also a bit tricky.
The overall weapon was great....until you needed to use it in actual combat situations then a lot of small things would just crop up. My main issue was that you had to handle it with care. I was used to the SLR FAL. You got into a situation you flung it outside the jeep, grabbed anything else you needed and jumped out picked it up and no matter how hard it hit the ground or what position it hit you were still rocking. Mud, dirt water and you were still working.
If you dropped the SA80 better just grab that 1911 because you were guaranteed to be out of action.
But Its a freakin cool looking rifle.
I was a Canadian soldier, started on FN went to C7 and spent some time with the British army and had the opportunity to use the L85. This was 1995 and I don't remember whether it was an A1 or A2. I kind of liked it. I would be happy to be issued with either. I liked the optical sight on the L85, at a time when the C7 didn't have it yet. I liked how compact it was. If I was a Brit squaddie who had never handled a rifle at all, the odd ergonomics would be as natural as a more conventional layout is to me.
Probably the A1. The A2 didn't come about until around the mid-2000s
I like how you mention the Canadian Firearms plight as much as you can. Happy that I am out of the service so I can speak my opinion now.
What exactly is going on up there?
I was a Rifleman in the Infantry in the Dutch Army for 10 years and the Diemaco C7A1 was my service rifle for a long time until I changed to be a machinegunner with the FN Minimi. Gawd I loved that rifle! It was accurate and very easy to maintain.
During my service they took my L1A1 out of my hands and gave me an L85A1/A2. While the L85 is great in confined spaces/closer ranges give me an L1A1 all day long!!
Matsimus has finally seen the light 🙌🏼
Battle rifles are all different depending on your perspective.....I too ex British Army....started on SLR. Then SMG and SLR....eventually on to L85 A1
All depends on your job....reliability vs rate of fire.
Never had a problem with SMG....SLR....fabulous rifle until anywhere near sand....SA80 well maintained ,short range, never had an issue ..
@@mozki1 Wow cool story. Has absolutely nothing to with the topic of the C7 vs the L85.
@@cattledog901 oh excuse me for not providing one side of an argument. Trying to field experience and usage of weapon systems into the mix
C7A2 hands down. I can write with either hand but the left eye is my main one I cant aim with the right one.
Being a Retired Queens Guard I pick my beloved SA80A1 & A2. Both never let me down at the most crucial times.
Great vid Matt, good to see the comparison
You should check out Forgotten Weapons and Small Arms Solutions if you want to learn more about historical guns.
Those two did make videos that went over the history of the AR-15 Varient that was made by Colt Canada
Cool perspective from some who has worked with both, great video!
Meanwhile a Crotchety old geezer from the US CAV, is chuckling at these new fancy gizmos where the iron sights are suppose to be. 😎
Having used M26A2, M4, and bunch of flavors of AR15, I prefer a 16 inch barrel. It is handy, and the balance is decent, but you do not lose as much velocity as from a 10 inch or even 14 inch barrel. Canada really messed up the balance on the C8 by pitting the collapsible stock on the 20 inch barrel. Am M16A2 has decent balance withe fixed stock.
I thought the weight and balance of the SA80 were strange, but never got to shoot one only handle them.
For accessories I prefer a 1x illuminated optic of some sort, preferably an Aimpoint. I also insist on a flashlight if the weapon is not dedicated to night vision or thermal. I use small weapon lights like the TLR1 or Surefire S300 to keep weight down. While I won't be engaging at 200 meters with one of those lights, I doubt highly I would be engaging at 200 meters with a light designed to throw a beam that far.
You may have seen the Brit Army in Ireland issued their SLR. They had a manner of carrying them in built up areas. They carried them level across the chest in a way that made the greater length easier to maneuver in doorways, etc. I used the method in the use of the M16A1 for similar reasons and the less recoil allowed it to be fired without being shouldered. Thanks for the review.
That’s correct I’ve seen the similar comparisons basically it’s the only and best way to do it. 👍🏻
Yes.. that is true. Even in the Falklands the paras carried their SLRs like that - across the chest. Of course you couldn't fire that sucker without shouldering it - well, it'd be pretty gung ho if you did!!
I’m currently serving in the British army , and it’s a pretty decent rifle if you oil and clean it properly, I’ve had very few stoppages, it’s incredibly accurate my only dig at it is the pain it is to clean because, carbon builds up massively near and in the working parts 😂
gotta clean that starfish ;)
Hi, Matt! If you're in Canada & you think you can't own a high-powered firearm such as the SA-80/L-85, then might introduce you to a fellow Canadian CZcamsr named Arm&Gun whose channel features (You guessed it!) high-powered firearms such as the SA-80/L-85! Hope this helps you out! ENJOY!
High powered firearm is one thing, I don't think an L85 has been exported out of the UK in great numbers.
@@danielhenderson8316 Perhaps so but you never know! There might be some floating around, albeit not legally but, then again, you never know.
Arm&Gun has a firearms business license which allows him to have all the cool stuff the government took away from us decades ago. Us regular folk aren't allowed most of what he features these days.
@@pukalo Really? Goes to show how uncomfortable big government feels about armed citizens which is funny considering that during World War 2, a general draft was called because the government needed more MEN under arms to be ready to fight but now... Y'know, now that I think about it, REAL Democracies are best protected by their People, Citizens who are sane, sober & socially responsible for the common good & are thus fit & worthy to bear arms to defend the common body-politic. What most think of when this comes to mind is Israel but given that they're in a rather bad neighborhood, I therefore give you guys Switzerland! Now, THIS is what I'd call a REAL DEMOCRACY wherein EVERY citizen of appropriate age is trained & armed for modern warfare! I mean, why leave war to the professionals when it should be every citizen's duty & right to defend their country & the values for which it stands, right? And, for that matter, why should the national government deny their citizens the means to do that, right? Unless they're planning to create a dictatorship like that in china, that is! Now, as Free Citizens, will you guys ALLOW that?
I remember doing live fire CQB training with the C7A1 and the old flak jackets, and that thing was ungodly unwieldy for that kind of stuff, especially for someone short and with short arms like me. The C7A2 made it a little better with the collapsible stock, but it’s still a musket. I have an X95 bullpup and a 10.5” AR15 with a flashcan and the X95 is the same overall length with a 18.5” barrel. People hate on bullpups a lot, but I think the trade offs are worth it.
Its a shame they havent upgraded the C7s at least to a freefloat handguard, most AR platforms can see their MOA halved just from that.
the caf is currently in the process of upgrading our rifles to a lighter design, from what i've seen and been told the rifle has a free floating barrel it is also closer to the c8 carbine in length.
Tbh for a standard infantry rifle you dont need to have a freefloat barrel since standard infantry isnt that accurate anyway
@@warmonkey3216 true I like shitter worse things for no reason
To be honest, for a military application the MOA that the C7/M16 is capable enough is more than adequate for what its used for.
@@warmonkey3216 Free float helps mitigate heating of the handguard when shooting high volume CQM.
I'm going to throw my 2 kumara in on this. I used to use the Steyr AUG and our army transitioned to the LMT Mars-L. The Mars is a great rifle. The ACOG and RMR sight we have are awesome. The rail space is nice but against a modern army you don't actually need much. Lasers can be counterproductive and the new gen night vision attachments are just unbelievably cool and small. But the Steyr whilst old and showing its age, shitty trigger and was generally flogged out it did have great balance and the size was awesome. Like you say best for in close spaces. But also if you have to carry heaps of stuff like another jerry can or a like stores or big stuff having the smaller rifle helped. Or even just cutting the track plan at a harbour having the shorter rifle over your shoulder and then contact somewhere you just fling the rifle over and your good. The AR15 DI system though I think makes alot of sense and removes weight and is easier to harmonise the timing on.
But I think its all kinda moot as I think the best rifle layout will come from using a better round - weapon integration. Something where you take a large volume case but short OA length that you could still fit in a mag in pistol grip config like a uzi. So in a case with dimensions/volume like a .44 mag but rimless. The benefit I think will be best balance/barrel trade offs but more than anything you could carry more mags. And mags win firefights.
The UGL will be closer to the control hand and still make for a shorter package. If you could fashion it so it is roller delayed blow back (roller delayed acting on a firing pin maybe) and using common commercial extrusions for the reciever then you have a conceptually easy weapon to manufacture under war time stresses. Looking back to the German experiences with STG44 and MG42 as an inspiration.
But in truth its all been down hill since the Brown Bess anyway.
So thats my 2 cents (which due to inflation is worth less now that it did when I started writing this monologue).
LMTs are top notch kit....
LMT MARS-L is a high end AR platform. It is much better than the standard Cold M4A1 issued across the US Army for instance. My only issue is that NZDF opted for a 16" barrel over a more practical 14.5" which makes the MARS-L a bit unbalanced for CQB or working in and around air assault/mechanized operations. Plus NZDF got the whole package including LaRue mounts, Trijcon ACOG's and PMAGs. But this is only possible because NZDF is relatively small (and lacking in any real military capabiity) and therefore can spend more per individual soldier than larger defence budgets which are significantly higher but also spread across a lot more personnel and capability.
@@shaivahnparsons3244 16" barrel is actually the sweet spot. Better ballistics than 14.5" while only being only 1.5" longer.
@@armynurseboy here is the problem. It's another 1.5" that mechanized infantry does not have inside an AFV or air assault troops do not have inside the back of a helo. The extra ballistics are also just unnecessary when you consider how your stock standard infantry section operates in a firefight - volume and firepower over long-range terminal ballistics. I personally would have opted for a 10.5" and left engagements out past 300m to a DMR or MG. RFN should not be used to engage point targets beyond 300m. Nor do most even have the marksmanship to do that under combat stress. Your average RFN is not a scout sniper despite what action movies would have people believe. Most barely pass their shooting qualifications under permissive conditions on a flat range.
@@armynurseboy you could easily make the counter argument that 14.5" is has only slightly lower muzzle velocity but is 1.5" shorter. Or that you get near optimal ballistics from an 18" barrel while only adding 2 extra inches over 16". For a service rifle that doesn't have the option of a folding stock do to the position of the buffer tube, 14.5" is a good size compromise for modern infantrymen.
Awesome video thanks. Important as you stated, " No issue with reliability "
I know what you mean about having strong feelings towards the l85. I myself was also in the ACF. I'm currently in the reserves, and have been in for over a year. Even though I'm left-handed, the rifle has kinda grown on me. I do think it needs to be a little bit lighter, but I guess you get used to it. When I did my so-called "phase 1", I taught myself to shoot with both eyes open while on the range. Luckily, we had the SUSAT on our rifles, when I did my training over in Pirbright and Grantham, otherwise, I probably would have struggled using the iron sights. At my unit, we've got a guy who's done a lot of training/competitions with the army shooting team. He's had a chance to shoot a lot of other weapons. He said he favours the Canadian rifle over the L85, and said the M1 Garand is his fun gun of choice
I've used the L85A1 and A2, A1 was shockingly terrible. The A2 really made it a reliable (comparable to other service weapons) weapon system. Shot it in competition at Bisley and put nearly 7000 rds through it on the build up training for the competition with very, very few stoppages and only a battle clean after each days range practises. SUSAT was sturdy and robust, what you need for a weapon being thrown around in the back of an IFV, but you had to treat it carefully to maintain zero and you had to know exactly how to zero it correctly. LDS on the A3 is supposedly top notch. Fought in Afghanistan with the A2 and can't complain, it did me well, kept me alive and never had a stoppage when I needed it to work.
The L85 cannot be fired from the left shoulder as the shooter would get hit in the face with spent cases not to mention the charging handle. This greatly limits the tactical use of the L85 as the rifle cannot be fired from behind right-hand cover making it's use in urban house to house and room to room fighting problematic. This is probably the main reason why the SAS and some other British units have opted to use non-bullpup rifles.
It can be, and is, fired from the left shoulder via the piggyback RMR, which brings your face clear of the cocking handle and ejection path. Not ideal, but works.
100% I remember the bpllocking I got for burning my seniors neck with my casings.....
They stuck their head out the window I was shooting out of to shout at me to shoot at the window I was shooting at(was blanks how tf you know I was shooting too left window not bottom right ffs) so the squeal did give me a bit of a chuckle
Rubbish we learn to shoot it left handed by using the Red dot on to of the sight
it can be fired left and right handed . i have done it both .
Interesting. How does the RMR allow to shoot it from the left shoulder? Is the sight high enough so the shooter could aim while putting one's jaw on top of the rifle or what?
I feel your pain, in New Zealand we changed from a bull pup (Steyr AUG) to an AR-15 platform (MARS-L) and the change in weight balance and the ergonomics really screws with your muscle memory!
It was a crying shame the Aussie EF88 wasn’t in the rifle replacement trials, having shot it deployed with the Aussies it’s a real winner.
The barrel on the EF88 is exceptionally thin (and fluted) to keep the rifle within the weight requirements. I hope that doesn't come back to haunt them. If it doesn't, and that weight is sufficient, than the barrel on the MARS-L could arguably be cut down to half its weight as well. That would make a noticeable difference to the balance of the rifle.
Look at what Australian SAS and NZ SAS choose to carry, when they could have whatever they want-especially their nation's issued rifle. Why do they reject it and carry something else dating back to 1967?
@@LRRPFco52
The AUG is a great weapon, but it has a few drawbacks which make it slightly inferior to the AR platform
@@sam8742 I really like the AUG, but still don't own one after over 30 years of panic-buying.
@@LRRPFco52
Wish I could own an AUG, alas I live in Australia
I used the L85A2 in training but I've been told we're getting A3s in unit. It's a serviceable rifle but I do not think it's adequate for the needs of the current battlefield, and it's also unnecessarily heavy. If the British Army wants to stick to bullpups they should consider the F88, the Springfield Hellion or Desert Tech MDR. We all know this will never happen and I am probably just talking out of my arse now but it's ok to dream.
I think the plan is to eventually roll out the KS1 to everyone, which would still be a solid improvement overall over what regular British soldiers had to deal with for too long.
The l85A2 and other bullpup designs have great advantages. You get the that full length barrel in a compact package. You would get better ballistics than a short barrelled m4 that would be overall similar to the size of a bullpup. The only gripe I have is that I have no training on bullpups but thats easy to remedy. L85A2 barrel length = 20" and its the size of a 14.5 M4. Thats awesome.
Nice comparison. I have to say, you’re the first one I’ve heard suggesting that the reliability of the L85A2 (not A1!) is inferior to an AR platform. That said, not all AR platforms are created equally. Diemaco (Colt Canada) are known for top quality stuff.
I’ve been out for a long time. Many soldiers in NZ used to hate the Steyr. I never did. I liked it for a lot of the reasons you put forward with the L85. Nicely balanced and short with full length barrel. I think the Steyr is better balanced and more ergonomic than the L85, and lighter.
The Danes and the Dutch both upgraded their C7 and C8 rifles to monolithic free floaters. The Danes got it right with 16” barrels replacing the old carbine and rifle barrels. They now have a rifle that is not dissimilar to our new MARS-L. The Dutch got it wrong. The kept their 20” barrels so their rifles are still as unwieldy as your C7A2. Their 20” barrel gives them no range advantage though, because they replaced their Elcans with Aimpoints.
The Brits currently use the fixed four power Elcan, which is a beautiful sight. Far improved from the older one you still have.
The AR15 does actually have a piston. It is the bolt. And the C7 is lighter than the L85, by nearly half a kg, or a pound.
I have used full length AR15s for civilian service rifle competitions (prior to our Grand Theft Semi Auto) and have to say, I too prefer the AR platform.
I got the airsoft L85 and am trained to shoot a C7 variant. This seems pretty spot on from my limited perspective. M95’s are very reliable and easy to use/maintain, but I am fascinated by the handling of bullpup designs and want to try to shoot some for real.
M4/16 variants FTW... Best ergonomics ;)
C7 if I can only choose one ……
But in a perfect world C7 for outdoor and long range engagements….
And the bullpup for CQB engagements.
I trained with the C7 in the Canadian military and had no complaints for the basic service rifle.
Excellent video. Most experienced soldiers will tell you their favorite weapons is the one the rely on to save their lives. I’ve never fired or used an L85, but I’ve shot many AR-15 clones and FN FALs. As a left handed human, I vastly preferred the FN FAL. It was more ergonomic for me and I did not get powder in the face.
Of these 2 I prefer the C7A2, but I think some of the more modern versions of the AR15 platform made for the civilian market are better.
As a British person and shot over 20 years and shot many weapons which alot of others would never get to shoot in the UK and I can feel good to say the l85 bulpup no thankyou.
Got the bolt in your face and compared to a m4 having issues in the field clearing malfunctions is miles faster.
One of my least liked weapons I've ever shot
Great video. I had an opportunity to train w/ Brits in the summer of 2018 with the Lorne Scots, 48th Highlanders and Toronto Scottish. During our urban ops ex I absolutely adored the optic on the L85, and the easy of use in holding angles for long periods of time. The optics built in ranges seemed much more intuitive to me as well. Only issues I had with mine was the BU red dot sight didn't work, and a couple of the rifles including the platoon commanders magazine simply wouldn't eject. Excellent video.
I loved using the L85.
So iconically British.
And I thought the SUSAT was fine
"Have you ever actually used (an L85) ?"
Well no, because 1- They are super rare for civilians as you said, and 2- I shoot left-handed and like having my teeth where they currently sit in my mouth.
I started on the FN FAL and when I went to my Regiment, It was the C7. I loved the C7, we only had iron sights back in 1990. But the platform was great. Alot of the US guys liked it as well with our trips to Ft Lewis and Bragg. My only complaint was the Thermold Mags. Hated them. We would always scoop the Metal mags when working with the American guys. I was never able to shoot the C8. So only had the luxury of the C7. And never had the pleasure to have optics, I think they were the Elcan scope. S!
"We have FAMAS at home, lads"
"We have m16 at home, eh"
I used the SA80 in 1989 when bits still fell off. But boy oh boy on the range with that optical sight and no recoil. As long as you read the pamphlet, and knew the bullet drop and windage, you could hardly miss.
Matsimus, dude your looking fit man. Keep up the fitness journey.
I think the biggest issue with the C7A2 is that they adopted the M16A2 barrel profile. It's a badly laid out profile which is too thick generally, but far too thick after the gas block. This really exacerbates the forward heaviness. With a more sensible profile it becomes a lot more handy, and dropping it to 16-18" improves this further. Floating the barrel would also help too.
It's fine under the handguards, definitely unnecessarily-heavy from the FSB-forward.
The C8 is plenty for Canadian Infantry. It might be time for a new cartridge though.
They'll catch on eventually up there. Colt in canada can only do so much with the contracts they have with the canucks.
Having been apart of the early trials of the SA-80 and at Bisley in the annual RASAM ! back to the trials , a total nightmare in Norway , the SAS and SBS binned it from day one , full of gaps ,packing in snow , remember the guys from the trials and development teams running tactical evaluations , example tactical withdrawals in contact , then setting up ambushes with a hot weapon , which rapidly cooled down, then froze . had to piss on it to get it to work , the SUSAT misting , had to use the old respirator demisting cream ,mega problems with NDs due to brass building up on the bolt head , resulting in rounds not being ejected on unloads etc, as for a skill at arms championship rifle , great up to a point , as long as you didn't use the rifle on exercises or assault course , it would manage to hold itself together long enough to maintain a tight grouping and do well in competitions, the Canadian rifle just needs the British SUSAT and would win hands down !
Neither. I want my FN C1A1 back. It was a real weapon. It hit the enemy and killed the enemy. It went THROUGH armour. And I didn't need to worry about breaking it over an enemy's skull.
After service I began a firearms club in the UK before you were born . We shared military ranges with regulars and often got together for chats . Arms in our club included Colt AR15 Sporter , Ruger Mini 14s , FN FALs , Steyr Augs , AR180s , AKs etc , so the regulars in the next lane would be curious and we would train them on using all these different firearms including a variety of handguns including my Glock ( probably the first in the UK at the time ). In return we were given the opportunity to shoot the newly introduced L85 and the Cadets in the next lane will be using the straight pull lash up which was no training for anything . Being familiar with the AUG I had no trouble from transferring from my Sporter to the AUG to the new L85 , weak or strong hand apart from the bolt handle reciprocating way too close to my teeth for confident shooting wrong side of cover . It would have cost too much to have made this a good rifle off the starting blocks by fitting the non reciprocating FAL or SLR cocking handle of which many millions as parts were already in storage . I even had a forged AR upper with left SLR cocking handle , rear charging handle and high rise 'Picatinny' rail to swap out on my Colt Sporter which had the old A2 carry handle but I had the Armson UK ( then Trijicon Armson ) tritium red dot and Colt Scope privately purchased . I also had an FAL as a practical major calibre which I loved . I never had the chance to use the L85 in combat ( thankfully) or practically , but it was very handy but not as handy as the AUG . Too many idiots not understanding engineering polymers in the 80s in the procurement process . Both optics were similar but the SUSAT ( sight unit small arms trilux ) was from a previous attempt to upgrade the L1A1 (fondly known as " the SLR ") and use on the GPMG . I found the L85 very accurate , possibly more so than my Colt AR15 Sporter with iron sights , about the same as the AUG . The mags were very flimsy compared to all offerings for the Colt , Sterling AR180 ( interchangeable) even the Ruger Mini 14 ( rear latching system , AK FAL G3 etc) even the polymer AUG mags were stiffer with no feed problems . Loading 30 in an L85 mag would cause problems , like the old STEN it was happier with 28 rnds or an AR15 or Sterling AR180 mag. I liked bull pups but the early effort was not battle ready by a long chalk. If I had one in Gulf 1 I would have ditched it for an AK ,ASAP ! To me at the development and trial stage if a bullpup was they way , a package deal with Austria with the Steyr AUG and possibly SSG and Glock would have saved £ Mns. Even Sterlings folding stock AR18 was a better rifle all round and the SA80/L85 shares many common internal features as the Armalite AR18 of IRA infamy and the SA80 of course .
I'm told the L85A2/3 a good rifle now , so it should be after we bought H&K basically to redevelop it , then sold H&K . They happen to be the best STANAG mags available today . Forget your USGI , E or P Mags , for a slight weight penalty these are bomb proof reliable and easily converted to 20 or 10 rnds ( depending on your activity local legislation etc ) with a hacksaw dremel and Swiss file .
The L85 is now coming to an end as the US adopts a new rifle and cartridge ( oddly very similar to the characteristics of the 280 British the US ruled out in the NATO trials 60 odd years ago ) and NATO is no longer a collective but run by the US . The UK must design a new rifle or buy from overseas and we have already bought US material into our arsenal for too long now . I hope its the former as we certainly have the technical ability in the UK in advanced engineering otherwise the US would stop trying to hack UK defence companies , which keeps GCHQ busy . My experience and rant over !
The 280 was literally just a modified 277 Pedersen developed in the US 40 yrs earlier for the Garand trials. The new US cartidge 276 fury is a bi-metal armor piercing round that is more aligned ballistically to the pedersen
The L85 was designed for the Rhine Army of the 70s - armoured infantry in AFVs on the German Plain. Hence, it is no surprise that it is very good at that. It is based on the AR-18 which is a way more reliable design that the AR-15/M-16/M-4/C7/C8 family as it uses a short stroke gas piston, so doesn't expel combustion gases inside the receiver which deposits dirt, heats metal parts unnecessarily and attacks the lubrication.
For infantry in urban areas, the L85's 2 (slight) drawbacks (weight and right handed only) are evident. It is still good enough to not warrant replacement unless the current stock are falling apart, or unless the UK decides to follow the US down the 6.8 mm path.
Ar18 was shit compared to the ar15
Can hear the Canadian starting to come through in his accent lol
This year at Camp Perry we had a Canadian shooter that came down to compete. He said the latest laws basically made it impossible for him to use his AR. He was shooting a bolt action Tikka in the matches.
I was in the army cadets 1982 to 1987 and I got to use the SLR (L1A1 - FN FAL variant) and the SA80 cadet version, and the Lee Enfield No 4 bolt action rifle. Couldn't get more different rifles! I thought the SLR/FAL was just so damn cool, it was a beast. It was a bit front heavy (especially for a 14 year old!) but I thought it was very comfortable and ergonomic. I think the SA80 A2/A3 is a decent weapon system - but personal preference counts for a lot. Problem is, you don't get to choose your gear in the army!
I have fired the L98 and mine was fine, but others jammed on the army range that day. This was in the early 90s. And it was a nightmare to strip down.
While the SA-80 has the advantage of compactness enjoyed by "bullpup" rifles, there are plenty of other more venerable, reliable, and ergonomic weapons that use the same configuration like the AUG, FAMAS, Tavor-21, VHS-2, F2000, etc..
Yup, but none of those are British made. Which is sort of the point of the SA80 family. We kept it because it was British.
@@mikeycraig8970 My comment makes no claims as to why the SA-80 was adopted as a service arm therefore, doesn't matter if it is British made. It is objectively the worst widely adopted service bullpup used by a modern military. Just because it stroked national pride and kept Enfield running for a few more years doesn't mean the merits of a bullpup rifle aren't better executed in another platform. The C7 and C8 rifles aren't British made either, but they are being used as a comparison in this video, and are also in used with the British MoD. When the L85 gets replaced in the future, it will likely be with either a Canadian(CZ) MRR or German H&K 416.
@@mikeycraig8970 lee Enfield was originally American bolt action, ( lee Medford, I believe Medford action who was an American, ), SLR Belgium, Bren gun Czechoslovakian, EM1 by a Polish man who moved to UK. When we went for 100% British, it was 1000% crap.
@@mikeycraig8970 and no ware near as good as an AR
@@colbunkmust We'll see what it gets replaced with. I wouldn't be surprised if there's another home grown challenger which, while not being the best, will AGAIN be picked for its Britishness and its cost. I don't care how much you try to educate me that the others are better. That's not how the MOD choose. They go for cheapest option. End of.
Maybe you should compare the SA80 against the SLR. Then you can try 58 pattern webbing and helmet for a CFT.
In my experience every step forward was better than 30 years of stagnation. 1960 - 1990.
there is no way to legally do that in Canada, ever !
Hi, I know what you mean,my soldiering covers the period 56 to 71 and three different armies. My first rifle was the SMLE 303! One advantage with starting then was that we learned to stay in the aim whilst working the bolt and became better shots and had good control of our amunition usage. It came as a great shock to the new company commanders in how much ammunition soldiers could get through in a modern company attack using SLR’s especially as in the Paras what you brought to the fight is what you had. I have seen the various changes we have had to adapt to from Africa, Cyprus, Malaya, Aden, Muscat & Oman, Borneo and Vietnam. For soldiers the only choice is adapt or die. Cheers mate. Harera
@@pierevojzola9737 one thing that often gets over looked is how the cost of amo impacts how much you get to practice with , the best rifle in the world you only get to shoot 50 rounds a year out of will not be effective. When we went from7,62X51 to 5.56X45 we got about twice as much amo to practice with and that made a huge différance , also lower recoiling weapons are easier to get good with wen you have less amo to practice with .
@@woltews Good point.
I’m in the British army cadets and I’ve watched all the videos against the l85 but I’ve been on exercise and ranges with it and although it’s heavy it’s very ergonomic to use
The British rifle would literally be impossible for a left hand shooter. The brass would eject directly into the eye.
Also the shooter would get hit in the face with the charging handle.
@@hendriktonisson2915 I can't imagine which one's worse. Imagine firing your rifle, and becoming the first casualty.
The SAS refused to carry the SA80 mongrel and chose the Canadian made C7/C8 rifles.
Good enough for me.
All I’m saying there’s a reason UK special forces, rangers and commandos have picked up the C8...
I do miss my old rifle, think my a2 only ever had issues with crappy rounds but that's the LD's for you.
Fond memories of the L98 in the Air Cadets
My experience as a reservist with the C7A1 was awesome, I loved that rifle. Lots of guys always bitched about the C79 optic and “tunnel vision” but I honestly didn’t get why. Both the rifle and optic were highly reliable and I qualified marksman on the pwt’s a number of times, I would say mainly because the C79 made it so easy. I was always used to just iron sights on 22’s before the military.
And hopefully we ditch Trudeau soon and pollieve will restore our firearms privileges. Sad that my SA20 just sits in the safe.
Differences in standing prone and lying flat position. As the magazine sticks out differently.
As a Brit living in Canada, thanks for your service. Ps, I miss the old theme music to your vids. Cheers
I used the cadet version when I was 15-18, it was a lot of fun to do the target shooting at 25-100m with it. I know a lot of people hate it for "reasons", I never had any real issues with it besides the fact that the ones they gave us to use where old and rattled a bit.
all in all, not a bad little rifle.
Diemaco has served Canada so well over the years
I got on well with the SUSAT, my issue was the rail it sat on wasn't long enough for me. My issue with the A1 was double feeding on auto. As for accuracy, compared to almost every other rifle I ever used - it was staggering, a real step up from the SLR. But the striping down to clean was a joke compared to almost any rifle.
Barrel life was an issue armourers were not always up to speed on. As for manoeuvring around, brilliant!!
Awhh, I remember my cadet GP when I was at school! Happy days... 😁
Good job Mats. Lot of good things to consider., Thanks.
In the TA, I first trained with the SLR and the LMG, absolutely loved the SLR but it was evil to carry for days! In FIBUA it was a nightmare due to its size. We then switched to the original SA80, which was so much easier to carry and seemed ok. Then going regular, the unit I joined used the 9mm SMG :( An absolutely dreadful, useless, dangerous weapon (to anyone standing nearby if it got bumped!). Eventually we switched to the SA80 original version, which I ultimately put thousands of rounds through and found it reliable and accurate. Though I preferred the LSW version with bipod, heavier barrel and optics.
So the SLR for absolute stopping power/range, but the SA80 for carrying and use in anything urban!