Questions regarding M203 grenade launcher variants

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by Nyles

There's nothing unique about the barrel profile on the C7, our 203s are designed that way so they don't snag on kit. When mounted on the new C8A2s they don't even use the lower handguard.

That's the info from Diemaco when I picked up a brochure from them. The CF M203A1 hang a lot lower than the US version. The C8's I took photos of at George AFB during training have the slimmer barrel profile on then unlike the M4 carbines which were heavier.

[Nyles]

I'm posting this from CFB Edmonton, where I'm currently a Corporal assigned to 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. I'm issued a C7A2, up until now I carried an A1, and they both have the same profile as that of the M16A2. Diemaco advertises it as having a cold forged barrel, which is how it's manufactured, not the profile.

The old C8 and C8A1 had the same lightweight barrel as the old Colt Model 653 / 654, but we've been issuing them more and more lately and found they won't last in a sustained firefight. The new A2s have a 16" heavy barrel instead of the old 14.5" lightweight - they're basically the old Diemaco SFW without the rails.

Our 203s do hang lower than the US version, but the reason the mounting bracket is different is that they're less likely to snag on kit. Personally I don't like the design, they're a bitch to a put on, but we don't exactly get a choice in the matter.

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by Nyles

I'm posting this from CFB Edmonton, where I'm currently a Corporal assigned to 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. I'm issued a C7A2, up until now I carried an A1, and they both have the same profile as that of the M16A2. Diemaco advertises it as having a cold forged barrel, which is how it's manufactured, not the profile.

The old C8 and C8A1 had the same lightweight barrel as the old Colt Model 653 / 654, but we've been issuing them more and more lately and found they won't last in a sustained firefight. The new A2s have a 16" heavy barrel instead of the old 14.5" lightweight - they're basically the old Diemaco SFW without the rails.

Our 203s do hang lower than the US version, but the reason the mounting bracket is different is that they're less likely to snag on kit. Personally I don't like the design, they're a bitch to a put on, but we don't exactly get a choice in the matter.

Thanks Nyles the one I photographed in the old 14.5 " lightweight. Do the C8A2 have a large diameter un the handguards? I know that the M4A1 have a larger diameter under the hand guards compared to the M4 standard model.

The Canadian Forces that were training at George AFB, California were Great bunch of guys and gals. It's to bad the the government didn't supply them better but my fellow armorer Larry and I took care of that while they were here.

[Nyles]

Just the standard handguards, with the heavy barrel it's all you need. Here's some info on it if you're interested: http://www.casr.ca/101-rifle-c8fthb-carbine.htm They touch on the naming issue on there, but they're calling it C8A2 in battalion. Most of the ones we have out here are green though.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Nyles

Just the standard handguards, with the heavy barrel it's all you need. Here's some info on it if you're interested: http://www.casr.ca/101-rifle-c8fthb-carbine.htm They touch on the naming issue on there, but they're calling it C8A2 in battalion. Most of the ones we have out here are green though.

Yeah, I heard about the designation change a couple weeks ago. "C8A2" most definitely runs off the tongue much better than "C8FTHB".

Slightly off topic, but how does performance of the C8A2 (other than the increase in accuracy from the longer barrel) compare to the M4/M4A1?

[Nyles]

Well, not being an infanteer they're not giving me one, so I haven't shot it all that much, but realisitically not so much as you'd notice. An inch and a half of barrel won't make that much difference in the hands of most shooters, they can't shoot nearly as well as the weapon anyways.

They're used pretty much exclusively with optics (mostly the EOTech 552 but I've seen a few that still have Elcans), but even if they weren't there's still no more distance between the front and rear sights than on an M4.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Nyles

Well, not being an infanteer they're not giving me one, so I haven't shot it all that much, but realisitically not so much as you'd notice. An inch and a half of barrel won't make that much difference in the hands of most shooters, they can't shoot nearly as well as the weapon anyways.

They're used pretty much exclusively with optics (mostly the EOTech 552 but I've seen a few that still have Elcans), but even if they weren't there's still no more distance between the front and rear sights than on an M4.

Wait, so you guys don't use the Elcan anymore?