G&G Armament, planned release, C7A1

[mrfister]

the plastic is in the piston, piston head, spring guides, cylinder head hop up chamber, or so I am told. although I have to admit I have not seen one. and even if they are I still think it will be good.

I like the idea that they are doing and I am sure the gun will be decent. I love G&G and I love their blowback too. But I don't think these are blowback.

[Cliffradical]

Oh, I am intimately familiar with these systems. Nice gimmick for plinkers but not at all a good base for a skirmishable platform. There's just so many other/ cheaper/ more expensive but nicer guns to work out of if you're going to do a full gut that you'd have to really like this particular variant to even bother.
Nearly every measurement in these blowback armalites is out of standard far enough to be a pain in the ass. These are guns that rule until they break and then promote much gnashing of teeth.
It looks to me that G&G didn't do great market research for this product, missing details and putting this face on a less skirmish-friendly platform.
In fact, as I write this, I kind of get the feeling that G&G has potentially given a less popular product line an exclusive face-lift in an attempt to move stock.
Hm.

mrfister:
All of those parts are typically crappy-to-nice plastic in the vast majority of AEGs. The G&G (grey and green) plastic hopup chambers/ assemblies are actually really nice. The pistons/ piston heads are unfortunately exclusively crap though.

[Viperfish]

Originally Posted by Mordarski J.A.

The G&G C7A1 should not have the "M4 stock" (four-position law enforcement stock) because the RS C7A1 never came with a retractable stock. The difference between the C7 and C7A1 was the introduction of the flat top - the C7A2 was the introduction of the retractable stock and the ambidexterous fire selector. Why there is a Triad on there (for the sake of it being a C7A1) is beyond me.

All that said, I'm glad to see someone taking an interest in making a Canadian weapon. All too long now if someone wanted a "Canadian" weapon (C7 or C8 and all their variants) they had to buy the American version (M16 or M4) and modify it appropriately. It's great to see a C7A1 being produced right from factory. Aside from the Triad being available separately (as has been confirmed that it will be), I'm curious if the C79 Elcan will be an accurate representation....besides the screws/wingnuts.

While I'm happy that a C7A1 will be available, I personally will not likely be purchasing one simply because it is an AEG. I got bit by the GBBR bug and I prefer to use them. But if the parts (Triad, Elcan, etc.) are of good quality, I would consider purchasing them to assist with any C7A2 or C8A2/A3 GBBR builds.

Thanks Mordarski,

Hard to believe that in my 9 years with the CF i seem to know nothing about the C7 series of rifles [/sarcasm]

The C7A1 that this is trying to be is wrong on so many levels.

I have one sitting in my store right now and here are my thoughts on it.

-The green is way to bright, its some kind of puke green and nowhere close to what the C7A2 was.

-The fire selector markings are HK style and not the correct "S" "R" "A" that the C7 has.

-The "Canadian Forces" trademarks are all wrong. Slapping a maple leaf on the side of a rifle doesnt make it a good C7 clone.

-The barrel is wrong, Canadian issue C7s have a smooth barrel not a ribbed finish on them.

-The flash hider is wrong, the C7 has a standard AR style flash hider, not the KA style with the suppressor centring notch.

-The C79 is all wrong, it lacks the correct trades and the metal wingnuts the A2s have on them. it has the Radioactive marking on the bottom but its very sloppy. The retical is also wrong, close, but still wrong.

-The Thermold mag is very poorly made and did not fit nicely into the gun.

-The Thermold mag has not been used in over 15 years and was taken out of service long before the A2 series of rifles was introduced.

-The lack of the ambi features the A2 offers such as the selector, mag release and charging handle.

-The rifle itself is a strange mix of an A1 but with A2 attempted features.

-It DOES NOT have the blowback everyone is talking about.

Overall this rifle is a total POS, it fails at trying to be a true Canadian rifle and in my opinion is nothing more then a sad attempt to grab the money of uninformed Canadians hoping to do a good Canadian load out.

Well done G&G, you attempted to make a C7 but obviously without any sort of research. As a result you have put out the biggest pile of shit i have ever had the unfortunate luck of setting my eyes on.

To all the guys out there wanting to use this for a Canadian kit load out:

This is not the rifle you are looking for, move along.

All this will get you is laughed at by any and everyone who knows what a C7 is.

[Armyissue]

Just got them in. Its next to the standard M16 from G&G. I'll try to gave a better look tomorrow but you're welcome to come by and check it out for yourselves.

[mrfister]

so viperfish what is your store and what are you selling the C7 for?

[SweJohn]

They did the exact samething with the first swedish AK5 as well. Players here did a petition and sent it, and they accctually fixed it.

[Mordarski J.A.]

Originally Posted by Viperfish

Thanks Mordarski,

Hard to believe that in my 9 years with the CF i seem to know nothing about the C7 series of rifles [/sarcasm]

Yet in my seven years in the CF (been out for the last six) I still took note G&G stated it was an A1, and the A1 never had a retractable stock. That said....sarcasm noted. I agree with everything else you said, it's got a weird mix of A2 attempts and there are way too many things wrong to consider it any real bit close to "accurate". At least the black version gets rid of that off-coloured green!

To me all this looks like is a minimalistic re-brand of an M16. If they really wanted to recreate the C7A1 they should have at least attempted to get things accurate. I could understand if Colt Canada didn't want things like exact markings, but this is beyond something simple like that. Maybe if they opted to made a deal with Colt Canada they could have made a licensed replica....but this way they can reap all the profit. Assuming there is any, like you said - unless the buyers are uninformed they will notice all that is wrong with it. Maybe they won't care and will buy anyway?

[mrfister]

the green must be hard to copy. I spoke to someone at colt. he said to use the crappy tire camo green kryon paint. three coats. its as close as it comes.

[Styrak]

I was going to stock some of these in my store.....then I read about them and decided against it. G&G Toptechs are excellent guns, but this doesn't replicate a C7 very well.

[mrfister]

they are gc intermediate. or combat machine. not top tech. I had to laugh I mention this thread to a guy who did all sorts of secret squirrel stuff. known him a long time. he says "who gives a shit what it looks like. As long as it works" he said most the guys and himself painted their guns good awful colours to blend it. they looked like shit but shot straight and where hard to see.

[Gato]

It appears to be not that much you picked up about C7 in those 9 years, I'm about to break down on what you said.

First, some differences many may not know about:
Diemaco changed the trapdoor in the buttstock to make for easier access, and a 13 mm (0.5 in) spacer is available to adjust stock length.

The most noticeable external difference between American M16A2s and Diemaco C7s is the retention of the M16A1A1 style rear sights.

Diemaco's use of hammer-forged barrels as, the Canadians originally wished to use a heavy barrel profile instead of the M16A2 profile, is also a major difference.

Diemaco also developed a different mounting system from Colt for the M203 grenade launcher for the C7 rifle family.

Secondly, there are three main variants of C7:
C7: Old school, it had the previously mentioned M16A2 style rear sight, that shit did not come off.

Clearly not what this gun intends to replicate

C7A1: replaces the iron sight/carrying handle used on the C7 with a modified Weaver rail for mounting optics. Canadian development of rails preceded American standardization of the MIL-STD-1913 "Picatinny rail", so the "Canadian Rail" or "Diemaco Rail" differs slightly. There are 14 slots instead of 13 and each slot is narrower. The height of the rail is also lower, allowing the use of normal-height front sight post whereas a Picatinny rail requires the use of a higher F-marked front sight post. During development, the original rails were vacuum-bonded to the top of a bare receiver. For production, the rail and receiver were made out of a single forging.

C7A2:With Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, Diemaco and the Canadian Forces have developed improvements to the C7A1 to better suit the operational situations at hand. The result, the C7A2, has a four-point telescoping stock unit similar to that of the C8 carbine and a 3-rail TRI-AD I mount on the front sight triangle. The selector lever, magazine release, and charging handle latch are ambidextrous. It also has the green furnature everyone talks about. The C7A2 is considered a "mid-life" upgrade for the C7 family.



Before I start, this gun seems to poorly incorporate elements of two, if not all three of the C7 variants.

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The green is way to bright, its some kind of puke green and nowhere close to what the C7A2 was.

This I can agree with

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The fire selector markings are HK style and not the correct "S" "R" "A" that the C7 has.

Again, no argument

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The "Canadian Forces" trademarks are all wrong. Slapping a maple leaf on
the side of a rifle doesnt make it a good C7 clone.

This is where I start to comment, the main issue is the maple leaf is styled differently than the Diemaco/Colt Canada one. The Canadian forces wording is also incorrect and should be as follows:

-LEAF HERE-
Canadian
Forces
Canadiennes
C7
5.56mm
-Serial number here-

I have not taken the time to indent these properly, as I can't be bothered to do so at 0109

The serial number is also wrong, I won't go into detail in regards to how it breaks down into the meanings of the numbers and letters, there's plently of discussion on that on here, but the format generally goes two numbers, two letters, more numbers, example as follows: 00AA56421

We would also have to determine if this is a Diemaco or Colt Canada rifle to determine trademarks, as the Diemaco rifles had Diemaco D on them above the trigger, with the following above the D:
"MADE IN CANADA
FABRIQUE AU CANADA"

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The barrel is wrong, Canadian issue C7s have a smooth barrel not a ribbed finish on them.

While I do not have one in front of me to go on, having handled my rifle recently and using pictures as a refrence, the barrel does not look too bad. My C7 does have the tiny ribbing on the barrel.

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The flash hider is wrong, the C7 has a standard AR style flash hider, not the KA style with the suppressor centring notch.

Again, no argument

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The C79 is all wrong, it lacks the correct trades and the metal wingnuts the A2s have on them. it has the Radioactive marking on the bottom but its very sloppy. The retical is also wrong, close, but still wrong.

I have not viewed through the G&G optic, so I will not comment on that aspect. As well, I can not find a clear picture of the Radiation emblem, so no comment on that either.


The mount is wrong in a number of areas.

The upper part of the mount on the G&G appears to be flat on the sides, directly below where the optic housing attaches to the mount, in reality, it should be chamfered/Beveled. The windage screw only has the two small holes on one side, they are not present on the side with the slot used for adjusting. The elevation/range dial lacks numbering, arows and little indicator lines (it appears from pictures) as well as the door to allow elevation adjustments.

There appears to be no trades or serial number present on the optical sight.

In regards to the "wing nuts", both G&G and you, Fish, are wrong. While you are right, they are more of a wing nut than anything else, they are not metal, they are a hard plastic.

For the record, I have a real Elcan sitting in front of me, if anyone wishes to see it at a game, ask. If I have my WE there, I have my optic there and I'll let you see it.

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The Thermold mag is very poorly made and did not fit nicely into the gun.

Can't comment on the fit of the mags

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The Thermold mag has not been used in over 15 years and was taken out of service long before the A2 series of rifles was introduced.

Too true, the old Thermolds have been gone for at LEAST 15 years, some MIGHT crop up from time to time just to plague a user, but it's EXTREMELY rare.

They came pre loaded with ammunition, they were intended to be left behind or thrown away. With the way the CF was with budget and cost thinking, we tried to re-use a disposable item........ with a more than obvious result.

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The lack of the ambi features the A2 offers such as the selector, mag release and charging handle.

Again, we would need to determine if this was meant to be a C7A1 or C7A2. But going based off of furnature style, this is in fact, not a problem.

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-The rifle itself is a strange mix of an A1 but with A2 attempted features.

This about sums up a MAJOR flaw with the entire gun

Originally Posted by Viperfish

-It DOES NOT have the blowback everyone is talking about.

The only comment I have is this: If you want blow back, go get yourself a WE and build a C7/C8. Run C02 for reliability in most weather.

Originally Posted by Viperfish

Overall this rifle is a total POS, it fails at trying to be a true Canadian rifle and in my opinion is nothing more then a sad attempt to grab the money of uninformed Canadians hoping to do a good Canadian load out.

Well done G&G, you attempted to make a C7 but obviously without any sort of research. As a result you have put out the biggest pile of shit i have ever had the unfortunate luck of setting my eyes on.

To all the guys out there wanting to use this for a Canadian kit load out:

This is not the rifle you are looking for, move along.

All this will get you is laughed at by any and everyone who knows what a C7 is.

Nothing to add to this beyond that most won't laugh, but the issues will be pointed out to you.

Originally Posted by mrfister

they are gc intermediate. or combat machine. not top tech. I had to laugh I mention this thread to a guy who did all sorts of secret squirrel stuff. known him a long time. he says "who gives a shit what it looks like. As long as it works" he said most the guys and himself painted their guns good awful colours to blend it. they looked like shit but shot straight and where hard to see.

The reason some people "Give a shit" is that they're looking to build a standard, bone stock, C7 like the ones issued to the majority of the Canadian Armed Forces (And yes, we've been given the "Armed back).

Your "secret squirrel" buddy is right, guys who are allowed to do shit to their weapons do, but those guys are a minority. The vast majority are given their rifle, to use the way it came.

[Kokanee]

As a retired CF member I have entered into an agreement with G&G to advise them on how to correct their C7 AEG. Hopefully we can look forward to a v2 of this release and perhaps a proper C7A2 and C8 down the road.

[Danke]

Non-sarcastic Bravo!

[Gato]

Originally Posted by Kokanee

As a retired CF member I have entered into an agreement with G&G to advise them on how to correct their C7 AEG. Hopefully we can look forward to a v2 of this release and perhaps a proper C7A2 and C8 down the road.

I'm thinking it's unlikely but, I'm hoping, with you on the team, they can unfuck this abortion of a C series rifle :P

[Kokanee]

Fired off my notes and reference pictures / technical drawings to them this morning after receiving a "hey where are those notes you promised us???" email from G&G. Seems they are very eager to actually do this

Just a heads up, I went for the "99%" solution; but accurate enough that only someone who is a subject matter expert on the C7 rifle series would tell the difference.