# C9 Replacement



## DirtyDog (9 Apr 2008)

Maybe I'm a little lost here, but I've been wondering what is going to be done about our worn out (which we all know a lot of them are) C9's?

Since the C9A2 is dead it would seem that it won't be long before we are left with a bunch of worn out pieces of crap and no replacements on the way.

Am I missing something or is there any kind of plan in place?  It would seem to be somewhat important....


----------



## RCDtpr (9 Apr 2008)

C9A2 was scrapped? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (9 Apr 2008)

Thought we are using the C9-A2 over there now?


----------



## Ecco (9 Apr 2008)

How is the C9A2 dead?


----------



## DirtyDog (9 Apr 2008)

According to info I heard here, Colt Canada lost the rights to refurb the C9's and access to parts from FN as it was originally a Diemaco contract who were not such direct competitors to FN.

I looked it up:



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> New M249 PIP does not have a mag feed option (thank god)
> The C9A2 project is dead -- when Diemaco was sold to Colt, and became Colt Canada  - the rights to produce anything from FNH disappeared - Colt is an FN competitor - and FN was not allowing its TDP for the C6 and C9 to remain there.
> *yes genius to allow that to happen - so Canada will get no new parts from Diemaco/Colt Canada for those guns - nor barrels etc. (rocket science)
> 
> ...


----------



## DirtyDog (9 Apr 2008)

Just to clairfy, yes some A2s were prouced and will continue to be done so until the parts inventory isn't used up (if it isn't already).


----------



## Greymatters (10 Apr 2008)

As reputable as Infidel-6 is, you might want to see an official news release before making it official.

But it does raise a good question.  If the C9 goes out the window, how long will replacement parts last before forcing the purchase of a new system?  And what system would be best?


----------



## Ecco (10 Apr 2008)

Colt Canada website still says that they are doing the C9A2 Minimi upgrades.



			
				Colt Canada said:
			
		

> Weapon System Upgrades: Upgrade Programs such as the CF C7A2 Rifle and C9A2 Minimi LMG are also directed and executed through our R&O Section. With our experience and quality of workmanship behind us we are confident that we can tackle any weapons platform upgrade requested.



http://www.coltcanada.com/repair&overhaul.htm


----------



## RCDtpr (10 Apr 2008)

So assuming what I just read is correct...it appears we get no new parts for C6's either?  I don't know how accurate any of this is, but I can't see us scrapping the 9 and the 6.....they are pretty much the backbone weapons for all vehicles.  Just gonna have to wait and see I guess


----------



## DirtyDog (10 Apr 2008)

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> So assuming what I just read is correct...it appears we get no new parts for C6's either?  I don't know how accurate any of this is, but I can't see us scrapping the 9 and the 6.....they are pretty much the backbone weapons for all vehicles.  Just gonna have to wait and see I guess


You would have to assume that whatever affects the C9, affects the C6 as well (in this regard).

Of course, this all hinged on whether what I6 says is correct... but I put stock in his words.


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Apr 2008)

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> So assuming what I just read is correct...it appears we get no new parts for C6's either?  I don't know how accurate any of this is, but I can't see us scrapping the 9 and the 6.....they are pretty much the backbone weapons for all vehicles.  Just gonna have to wait and see I guess



Not only that, but both are extensively used worldwide, and to replace a MAG 58 or Minimi, well with what?

I have been in on Minimi Wksp rebuild programs here in Australia, last in 2004. Currently Thales in Lithgow is going the full on FTRs on Minimi using  US, Herstal and Aussie made components. Aussie made components are Australian marked, with 66 NSN country codes. Even NSN '21' (Canada) parts are used, and some gauges are Canadian marked also.

All Australian F89A1-P LMGs (generic Aussie version of the Minimi) have used the hydraulic buffers for over 10 yrs, and standard plastic butt. Picatinny rail ( with standard 1.5x optics) on the feed cover, and on all Australian bbl's there no front sight assembly on the gas block. The bolt is matched to the gun via serial number.

The gas regulator type of bbl is still in the system, but the newer US M249 type of glas block (direct gas type) without the reg are apparently being introduced. I ran into these new M249's made by FN (USA) at least 5 yrs ago . I found these guns more robust, even with additional reinforcing welds, and they had matt grey finish on the metal parts.  

In Iraq, we only used the Para Minimi, mainly with EOTECHs. Great for in and our of AFVs and uparmoured SUVs etc. Most of the lads removed the bipods, and even installed Surefires on their guns. Also on some of the guns was the NAD, and an RAS for a foregrip.  I scrounged up a box of US M249 heat shields for all our minimis. The guys loved them, and ya, with a heap of M16 30rd mags too for EY/backup use just in case.

Canada better pull its finger out for their FTR and parts replacement program for Minimi, or this will bite them in the ass much sooner than later. It does not take long for a backlog from hell to form.

My thoughts on the A2 are its a crap design, and I would put I6's words as good as gospel on the topic.


----------



## geo (10 Apr 2008)

Variations on the C6 and the C9 are used by the US ( M240 and M249 ) so replacement arms are in theory available... if not from Colt then from someone else but, we better not wait until it's too late and we become desparate and accept the 1st thing that comes along.

If the Diemaco contracts with FN are nul and void, it's a question of either COLT providing an alternative OR Canada buying direct from FN (FN USA?) thereby telling Colt Canada to pack their bags and go home... and shutting down our capacity to build and service our own arms.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Apr 2008)

I remember coming across a website that had details of the US Army's SAW trials and how the M249 faired. 

http://www.remtek.com/arms/fn/minimi/index.htm

On the M249 page, it explained that " A 50,000-round receiver life is expected. The Minimi's overall performance was outstanding and it was the clear winner of the SAW trials."

I have no way of knowing how accurate that information is, but if I was to use 50,000 rounds as a yardstick, I'd say a good number of the C9s in the system have probably reached this point in their service life. What's supposed to happen to the recievers at this point? Do they get sent to the Ammo Techs to get worked and refurbished, thus 'resetting' their service life, or are they supposed to get replaced as a whole unit with a new C9?


----------



## MG34 (10 Apr 2008)

Not a big deal especially with MK 46 & MK 48 in service with the CF already it is only a matter of time before their widespread use. Then again logic has little to do with CF small arms procurement


----------



## McG (10 Apr 2008)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> You would have to assume that ...


How about we not assume anything & then present it as fact? If you make a habit of this, someone eventually shows up knowing the truth & you end up looking the fool.


----------



## Ecco (11 Apr 2008)

I hate misinformation, so there it goes:

While at CANSEC, I talked about this (and other issues) with the general manager of Colt Canada.

-The contract for the mid-life upgrade of the C9 to C9A2 status was awarded to Colt Canada last month.
-They are waiting for the necessary parts and tooling to arrive.
-They intend to ramp up their production to 175 per month, for 2+ years.
-The Canadian Forces own the Intellectual Property of the C9, so there is no problem.
-Even if the CF would not have the IP rights, Colt Canada has a Technical Assistance Memorandum of Understanding with Fabrique Nationale, so they would be able to do the job anyway.
-The wear of Canadian C9A2 (with rubber insert as buffer, cost=1,50$) is the comparable to the wear of M249 (with hydraulic buffers, cost=500$).

Colt Canada disagrees strongly that Canada has lost their ability to manufacture or support their small arms fleet.  It's their job as Canada's Small Arms Centre of Excellence since 1976.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Apr 2008)

Ok ecco, 11 posts, and you SEEM to be full of 'info', however if you are going to claim such facts as gospel, how about a link, and secondly fill in your profile.

The hydraulic buffer is far superior to the old crap one, and where does this $500 of wear come in and on what?

I think thats BS.

I know Minimi, so don't try and BS. 31 yrs as an armourer from unit level of repair to FTR experience, on all  small arms used by Canada US and Australia.


----------



## McG (12 Apr 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Ok ecco, 11 posts, and you SEEM to be full of 'info', however if you are going to claim such facts as gospel, how about a link, and secondly fill in your profile.


If it helps, I heard the exact same think from the GM of Colt Canada.  The company will still do the mid-life upgrade of the C9.

There is no mention of $500 of wear.  $500 is the cost of the "far superior" buffer when the $ 50 "old crap one" has been shown to survive well beyond the point at which the rest of the weapon is required to undergo an overhaul.


----------



## KevinB (13 Apr 2008)

FN Herstal and FNMI are both adamant that Colt Canada has no RIGHT to the TDP.  But again since when has Diemaco done anything ethically -- they tried to make rip off versions of the KAC M4 RAS for a while until a CF member outed them...

As an End User of the M249, M249 Para, Mk46, and C9, C9A1, and C9A2 -- the C9A2 is a ghetto cheapskate upgrade.  But better than nothing.


----------



## McG (13 Apr 2008)

I think you need to rephrase the question you are giving to your friends at FN.  It is not if Colt Canada has IP rights, the question is does the Government of Canada have the IP rights.  The back handed comments about unethical business practices in the C9A2 project is out of line because it is speculative & baseless.  If this project were in any way not above-board, then the government would have nothing to do with it (I've seen enough examples of everything coming to full stop because of a tiny possibility of IP rights in doubt).


----------



## RTaylor (13 Apr 2008)

I heard Colt has the right to make slingshots and ballbearings made of depleted uranium so that's what we'll be getting in replacement of the C9.


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Apr 2008)

I wonder how well the C9 would work if they changed it to 6.8mm (Similar to the M468?). Would a heavier projectile be worth it?


----------



## KevinB (14 Apr 2008)

MCG -- not baseless I speak from first person experience, both in seeing the RAS - and knowing some people at KAC...  

FN views Colt as a competitor in the Small Arms field - FN built FNMI in South Carolina to build the M249 and M240 for the US Mil, and then build the M16A2, and M16A4.  The US Gov't had the Technical Data Package for the M16A2 since they designed it.  Colt won its lawsuit with the US Gov't to stop FN from making M4 carbines - since Colt owns the TDP to the M4 as they designed it not the US Gov't.   

 I'd be curious to see FN's reaction on this, as what would stop Colt Canada from making M249 and M240 stuff for the US Mil?
   but honestly my interest in the whole matter is rather dim, I have better things to do, like plan a wedding.

If the CF can get a C9A2 upgrade good for them - as long as its done legally.


----------



## McG (14 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> MCG -- not baseless I speak from first person experience, both in seeing the RAS - and knowing some people at KAC...


I am not concerned with rails.  You accused Colt Canada of being unethical in the C9 upgrade, and that is full baseless speculation on your part.  It is the sort of libelous comment that brings lawyers & bad attention to the site.


----------



## geo (14 Apr 2008)

WRT Diemaco OR Colt Canada doing things that are not ethical OR illegal....

I have no doubt that FN & Co would come down on them like a ton of Bricks for having breached contracts... and said contracts would be nul and void....

To date, MsM hasn't even suggested it so I can only guess that poor business ethics asside, Diemaco/Colt are respecting IP.


----------



## KevinB (14 Apr 2008)

Well I just sent this thread to some guys from FN - so maybe they can either come and correct me -- or their lawyers can talk to other people...


----------



## Ecco (19 Apr 2008)

While at a high-level meeting this week, I had a formal confirmation that there is no IP issues concerning the C9A2 replacement.  Also, the first C9A2 modified by Colt Canada should be delivered within a month, to happy machine-gunners of 3RCR (once they are back from Ex MG, I guess).


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to see FN's reaction on this, as what would stop Colt Canada from making M249 and M240 stuff for the US Mil?


The work being provided to the Canadian Government by Colt Canada is making use of IP owned by the Canadian Government for our use.  If the US Government does not own the same IP with the same rights of use, then that would stop Colt Canada from providing the same service.


----------



## KevinB (19 Apr 2008)

You've obviously missed several of the lawsuits going on in the firearms industry in the last few years...


   The Cdn gov't own the rights to certain Canadian inspired design changes -- however they do not own the rights to the weapon systems itself.


----------



## McG (20 Apr 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> You've obviously missed several of the lawsuits going on in the firearms industry in the last few years...


You obviously think I am too stupid to understand that different contracts will sell different IP rights, with different restrictions depending on how they've been written (and how they are judged in different civil systems).  The fact that lawsuits have occurred over other contracts does not prove anything one way or the other with respect to the IP rights that the Canadian government purchased.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The Cdn gov't own the rights to certain Canadian inspired design changes -- however they do not own the rights to the weapon systems itself.


Is this assumption or is your information from somebody that has read the initial C9 contract?  I'm not saying the Government has the rights to have the weapon built new.  We might have those rights, but that is not what is happening.  Existing weapons are being modified/upgraded.  Right now, the folks who read these contracts are saying that this is all above board.  

Are you sure your FN contacts are not straying out of their lane?  Could it be that there are things going on higher in their company that they are unaware of?  Things like:


			
				Ecco said:
			
		

> ... I talked about this (and other issues) with the general manager of Colt Canada ... Even if the CF would not have the IP rights, Colt Canada has a Technical Assistance Memorandum of Understanding with Fabrique Nationale, so they would be able to do the job anyway.


----------



## KevinB (20 Apr 2008)

My point has simply been that Colt Canada does not have the right to the FN Minmi/M249/C9 TDP -- the Cdn gov't may allow them use of the C9 propriaterial info, and FNH seems to be content with allowing them to do assistance.  However I have been assured by folks in both food chains that the C9A2 program is just going to cut old C9 barrels and rethread them, nor is any new production going on.  From my understand of the TAM - it allows CC to maintain in service weapons not to build new.
 Given the state of most of the C9 fleet, the upgrade program is going to flounder as a great deal of the receivers are worn out.  I spoke to several folk in Diemaco and the old LCMM - most who are no doubt regretting talking to me now, but the consensus was that the sale of Diemaco to Colt Canada was a very poor strategic error.

 MCG you of all should know I dont think your stupid.


----------

