The Danish Army has just signed a contract with Colt Canada for 5000 Colt C8 IUR carbine. The carbines will be designed the M/10. The guns feature quad rails and a fore grip.
[ Many thanks to Mark for emailing me the info. ]
American product is still holding most of AR rifle market. Colt Canada is a small company about 100 people working there(according to industry Canada). sells to Demark and Netherland happened in the middle of 90s, at that time Canada had labor cost advantage over US. Quality of C7 is very good, compared to M16……..I think it is 50 vs 50.
0 
0that handguard is awesome i wonder if i could get a hold of one it would look great on my .300 whisper upper
0 0“Note: since 2009, the Dutch are upgrading their Diemacos as well, outfitting them with telescopic stock, selective-fire (3-round burst instead of semi-auto only…”
Which is still kind of a bummer considering how perhaps the most striking difference between the C7A2 and the M16A2 is that the Canuck version is capable of fully automatic fire rather than just 3-round bursts.
0 0Colt Canada is part of Colt USA. In other words it is own by Colt and there really no differences between the quality of the two.
It looks like a standard AR15 Colt. Probably the same model (but with the fun switch) that is being sold to civilians in the USA. It does use a CAA saddle mount on a standard carbine stock (not M4 stock).
0 0Woody: Sweden has their own version of the FN FNC, not the HK416. Norway does have the HK416, though. The reason Denmark didn’t go for something new is that it’s a stopgap solution – an upgrade, not an entirely new weapon.
As Kristian said, it has a free floating barrel, which with the ambidex controls is the biggest change made.
0 0Oh right, my bad, sweden has the AK5.
0 0There are no handguards persay it is an integral part of the upper
0 0Nothing new here.
Colt got to be one of the list inovating small arms companies around. The best they can do to compete is buy the competition. Just laughable. Zero inovation.
Since Colt bought Diemaco, the canadian company lost a few good contracts in Europe.
Colt never built a military adopted rifle from ground up, yet they pretend to be treated like “world leaders in small arms”. The true is that all they did was buy products made by smaller more inovative companies, buy smaller more inovative companies, or do quick, cheap bandaide fixes to older designs.
Laughable.
2 2ive been noticing that many adopters of AR-15 type rifles have been going to Canada instead of one of the Many american companies. is the canuk’s rifle that much better?
0 0It looks like the BUIS is the Arms #40L low profile one. Any idea why they use this, when everything else, like the stock, rail handguard and foldable foregrip, seems like an original Colt Canada design?
0 0Viper: I suspect it’s part of an existing contract that CC is once again the company chosen.
Thomas: As far as I know the GL used is rail-mounted, so there’s no need for cuts in the barrel. I have no reason to believe the barrel is thinner under the IUR handguard. It looks like the thickness out C7FT’s had, and either a 16 or an 18 inch barrel.
Pictures of the test models evaluated back in ’08 – the stock and the shape of the handguard seem to be different on the final model:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1117/m10iur.jpg
http://www.taktiskforum.dk/forum/uploads/gallery_2_20_2110.jpg
0 0viper, I’m guessing it is because of U.S. export prohibitions/rules.
As a sport shooter in Sweden, it is more or less pointless to ask my gun shop to order firearms from the United States. Because of the red tape there is no way for the dealer to make a profit.
0 0Did they do away with the barrel cut ?
Is the barrel larger in dia. under the hand guards than the M4 ?
0 0Viper, a few years back, the Canadian M-16 outperformed an American model in a few temperature/torture tests.
Colt responded by buying out the company. It’s anyone’s guess how that’s affected either facility’s products.
0 0They probably bought from Canada due to ITAR regulations.
Lots of formerly American companies are developing, building, and selling things overseas because then they don’t have to ask goofermint permission to sell their stuff to other countries.
0 0Canada dosnt have the taxes the USA dose for international business in defense. Just like the USA many countries want a up grade to the AR with a monolithic rail and piston system. By the way COLT owns Damico of canada so we own it anyway!
0 0@viper5552
Apparently.. We Europeans do prefer cold hammered barrels and cnc milled parts over cast barrels and parts.
I wasn’t there when the Dutch Army choose the Diemaco C7 (Diemaco = Colt Canada since 2005) to replace the Artillerie Inrichtingen AR10 and the FN FAL, but apparently Colt fell out of the race quite early.
(in olden days, the traders used to label weapons with cast barrels “colonial quality”, to be handed out to friendly natives)
Note: since 2009, the Dutch are upgrading their Diemacos as well, outfitting them with telescopic stock, selective-fire (3-round burst instead of semi-auto only (“we’re Dutch, giving our soldiers more than semi-auto is just a waste of expensive bullets”)) and quad rails.
0 0Most ammo is wasted, very few rounds are actually on target. Put your rifle on rock & rollat the range and see what tou can hit at 400 meters, or a 100 meters, or 50 meters even.
0 0As far i can read from the press release it got a free-floating barrel ”flydende pibe”
0 0The shorter hand guard/rail seems like a step in the right direction. If you have a vertical foregrip you don’t really need all that plastic or rail real estate, it just adds weight. If you need a flashlight you can clamp it directly to the barrel.
0 1Lance, you are absolutely correct. Colt Canada produces the C8A2 carbine, which is very similar to the US M4. It is my understanding that Colt Canada produces weapons on par in terms on quality as the US Colt. Interesting how Denmark didn’t jump on the HK 416 bandwagon like Sweden, Norway, and other countries.
0 1
There are no handguards persay it is an integral part of the upper
Nothing new here.
Colt got to be one of the list inovating small arms companies around. The best they can do to compete is buy the competition. Just laughable. Zero inovation.
Since Colt bought Diemaco, the canadian company lost a few good contracts in Europe.
Colt never built a military adopted rifle from ground up, yet they pretend to be treated like “world leaders in small arms”. The true is that all they did was buy products made by smaller more inovative companies, buy smaller more inovative companies, or do quick, cheap bandaide fixes to older designs.
Laughable.
Oh right, my bad, sweden has the AK5.
Woody: Sweden has their own version of the FN FNC, not the HK416. Norway does have the HK416, though. The reason Denmark didn’t go for something new is that it’s a stopgap solution – an upgrade, not an entirely new weapon.
As Kristian said, it has a free floating barrel, which with the ambidex controls is the biggest change made.
American product is still holding most of AR rifle market. Colt Canada is a small company about 100 people working there(according to industry Canada). sells to Demark and Netherland happened in the middle of 90s, at that time Canada had labor cost advantage over US. Quality of C7 is very good, compared to M16……..I think it is 50 vs 50.
that handguard is awesome i wonder if i could get a hold of one it would look great on my .300 whisper upper
Lance, you are absolutely correct. Colt Canada produces the C8A2 carbine, which is very similar to the US M4. It is my understanding that Colt Canada produces weapons on par in terms on quality as the US Colt. Interesting how Denmark didn’t jump on the HK 416 bandwagon like Sweden, Norway, and other countries.
“Note: since 2009, the Dutch are upgrading their Diemacos as well, outfitting them with telescopic stock, selective-fire (3-round burst instead of semi-auto only…”
Which is still kind of a bummer considering how perhaps the most striking difference between the C7A2 and the M16A2 is that the Canuck version is capable of fully automatic fire rather than just 3-round bursts.
Colt Canada is part of Colt USA. In other words it is own by Colt and there really no differences between the quality of the two.
It looks like a standard AR15 Colt. Probably the same model (but with the fun switch) that is being sold to civilians in the USA. It does use a CAA saddle mount on a standard carbine stock (not M4 stock).
http://www.google.com/products?q=caa+saddle&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=e0zXS9aGEo3C9QTfwYGoBw&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CA8QzAMwAA
It looks like the BUIS is the Arms #40L low profile one. Any idea why they use this, when everything else, like the stock, rail handguard and foldable foregrip, seems like an original Colt Canada design?
Canada dosnt have the taxes the USA dose for international business in defense. Just like the USA many countries want a up grade to the AR with a monolithic rail and piston system. By the way COLT owns Damico of canada so we own it anyway!
As far i can read from the press release it got a free-floating barrel ”flydende pibe”
@viper5552
Apparently.. We Europeans do prefer cold hammered barrels and cnc milled parts over cast barrels and parts.
I wasn’t there when the Dutch Army choose the Diemaco C7 (Diemaco = Colt Canada since 2005) to replace the Artillerie Inrichtingen AR10 and the FN FAL, but apparently Colt fell out of the race quite early.
(in olden days, the traders used to label weapons with cast barrels “colonial quality”, to be handed out to friendly natives)
Note: since 2009, the Dutch are upgrading their Diemacos as well, outfitting them with telescopic stock, selective-fire (3-round burst instead of semi-auto only (“we’re Dutch, giving our soldiers more than semi-auto is just a waste of expensive bullets”)) and quad rails.
Most ammo is wasted, very few rounds are actually on target. Put your rifle on rock & rollat the range and see what tou can hit at 400 meters, or a 100 meters, or 50 meters even.
They probably bought from Canada due to ITAR regulations.
Lots of formerly American companies are developing, building, and selling things overseas because then they don’t have to ask goofermint permission to sell their stuff to other countries.
Viper, a few years back, the Canadian M-16 outperformed an American model in a few temperature/torture tests.
Colt responded by buying out the company. It’s anyone’s guess how that’s affected either facility’s products.
Viper: I suspect it’s part of an existing contract that CC is once again the company chosen.
Thomas: As far as I know the GL used is rail-mounted, so there’s no need for cuts in the barrel. I have no reason to believe the barrel is thinner under the IUR handguard. It looks like the thickness out C7FT’s had, and either a 16 or an 18 inch barrel.
Pictures of the test models evaluated back in ’08 – the stock and the shape of the handguard seem to be different on the final model:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1117/m10iur.jpg
http://www.taktiskforum.dk/forum/uploads/gallery_2_20_2110.jpg
The shorter hand guard/rail seems like a step in the right direction. If you have a vertical foregrip you don’t really need all that plastic or rail real estate, it just adds weight. If you need a flashlight you can clamp it directly to the barrel.
viper, I’m guessing it is because of U.S. export prohibitions/rules.
As a sport shooter in Sweden, it is more or less pointless to ask my gun shop to order firearms from the United States. Because of the red tape there is no way for the dealer to make a profit.
Did they do away with the barrel cut ?
Is the barrel larger in dia. under the hand guards than the M4 ?
ive been noticing that many adopters of AR-15 type rifles have been going to Canada instead of one of the Many american companies. is the canuk’s rifle that much better?