# C20 Semi-aut Sniper System



## MilEME09 (5 Aug 2019)

I've heard though the grape vine that the C14 is leaving and that it is being replaced by Colt Canada's new C20 7.62mm Semi-Auto Sniper System. Anyone know why the choice was made to drop back to a 7.62mm from a .338 that the C14 is? 

https://www.coltcanada.com/c20.html


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Aug 2019)

Google turned up this:



> Multi-calibre is one of the requirements for the new sniper rifle that will replace the current C14, chambered for .338 rounds, and the 1970s-vintage C3 rifles, chambered for 7.62mm. “The .338 is a magnum round,” Gendron said. “By putting the 7.62mm barrel on the same frame as the .338, we can retain the scope and keep the same form, fit and function.” Final technical specifications for the new multi-calibre rifle have been completed and it should go to tender shortly. The winning bid will become the C21 MCSW (Multi-Caliber Sniper Weapon), which will be the cornerstone of the sniper system for years to come.
> 
> The goal is a semi-automatic with the same accuracy as a bolt-action rifle. This has led to collaboration with Colt Canada on the design of the C20 SASW (Semi-Automatic Sniper Weapon) that fires a new .338 match round. Tousignant said snipers with minimal time on the C20 had been hitting accurately at 800 metres – maybe not always with the first round but routinely with following shots. Gendron said the new round has enough energy to reach out to a kilometre. The C20 has passed all the acceptance tests and will go into production at Colt Canada once the contract is let by PSPC.
> 
> A semi-automatic enables snipers to engage targets in rapid succession. “Not every situation is going to require the sniper and his No. 2 giving him all the information and the ballistics corrections required to make a very long shot,” Gendron said. “Sometimes, within 1,000 metres, you want to have snipers attached to the infantry as overwatch and they will not have time to check their computers for an exact ballistic solution. It might be a target-rich environment and that’s where we can fire semi-auto with the accuracy of a typical sniper rifle.”



https://canadianarmytoday.com/elite-shooters-taking-aim-at-the-key-components-to-improving-sniper-systems/

Looking forwards to further comments....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Aug 2019)

I can't imagine that 7.62 is going to fill all of the tasks that the .338 does? As I understand it the .338 covers off most of the tasks assigned to the Barret .50cal?


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Aug 2019)

From what I understand .308 sniper rifles were down loaded to a training role. Previously I heard rifle companies were getting them but that didn't appear to pan out. 

"The goal is a semi-automatic with the same accuracy as a bolt-action rifle".
A semi will always have more moving parts than a bolt action so will always be inherently less accurate. Still a good goal to work towards I guess.

Also heard that for snipers the loss of accuracy in semi-autos is off set by the much improved rate of fire. With a 7.62x51 semi-auto DMR rifle the sniper won't have to carry an additional C8, saving some weight.

I've seen DMR positions are popping up in rifle companies once again.  Mike Tousignant really knows his stuff as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2019)

Did I misunderstand the article?

I understood it to be saying that the CAF was looking for a single semi-automatic weapon to replace both the bolt-action .338 C14 Timberwolf and the .308 C3 Parker-Hale.

Ideally they seem to be looking for a single frame that can support both the .338 and .308 rounds to reduce training and cross-over time.

One candidate they are working with is, apparently, the Colt Diemaco .308 C20 and considering how it might be upped to manage the .338 as well and turn it into a contender for a C21 Multi-Caliber Sniper Weapon, capable of firing both rounds.

That would put something like the Dragunov in the infantry's hands with the added benefit of being able to reach out to a target array similar to that of the Barrett .50

Perhaps that would increase the capabilities of the "rifles" and reduce the demand on the "snipers" and free them up for more recce associated tasks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Aug 2019)

Better to design a manageable semi in .338 and then downgrade it to 7.62 NATO. Otherwise you have a gun that fails


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Aug 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Better to design a manageable semi in .338 and then downgrade it to 7.62 NATO. Otherwise you have a gun that fails



In the Falklands War the Argentinians used an M-14, with various scopes, to great effect. The guys I talked to who were pinned down/ shot (and survived) by them were impressed at how much damage/ delay that kind of weapon could cause.


----------



## cld617 (6 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Also heard that for snipers the loss of accuracy in semi-autos is off set by the much improved rate of fire. With a 7.62x51 semi-auto DMR rifle the sniper won't have to carry an additional C8, saving some weight.



A semi-auto that was tested to an accuracy of 0.66 moa is going to be limited to accuracy of the ammo we feed it, not the inherent accuracy of the platform itself. There is negligible accuracy drop-off from switching to semi's, the real loss in ballistic performance is in velocity.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Aug 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> A semi-auto that was tested to an accuracy of 0.66 moa is going to be limited to accuracy of the ammo we feed it, not the inherent accuracy of the platform itself.


That's awesome. Which semiauto was that?


----------



## brihard (6 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's awesome. Which semiauto was that?



Colt Canada C20. A 7,62x51 MRR/IUR platform. Colt Canada's page has some propaganda on it. https://www.coltcanada.com/c20.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Aug 2019)

Nice, I've seen the C7 MMR upgrades. Pretty nice.

I believe Sako has a successful 308/338 multical platform. That's a bolt action though, this project sounds like they're aiming for a 338 semi auto. Making it semi-auto is really going to add to the size. Worth while having a 308 in a chassis designed for a 338 semiauto?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2019)

That's my worry is that the "Nifty factor" takes over from the practical factor. 338 is a significantly more powerful round than 7.62 NATO and you won't be doing barrel swaps. Designing it so the guns can take the same type of scope, bipod, fire controls mimic each other is pretty easy. Now a training gun that's exactly the same as the 338 but in 7.62NATO might be worthwhile just on ammo savings alone.


----------



## NavyShooter (7 Aug 2019)

Designing a 'do it all' rifle is how you end up with the SPIW...a serial flechette rifle firing high speed bursts at 4000+fps mated with a 40mm multi-shot Grenade launcher.


Or the OICW...which we all know worked well.


There have been multi-caliber rifles designed and built, and maybe they'd work...but I think with the .338 round's energy, you'd be better off with two separate platforms.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2019)

Some alternate .338 semi-auto platforms

https://sword-int.com/mk-18/ - SWORD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsOe4xneePw - Alexander
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFewrm_Q8B4 - Noreen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpWtrVKPV7g - Kivaari


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2019)

Are these "companion pieces"?  Would .338 be a suitable calibre for a Platoon Weapons Det of MGs and DMRs?

https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/01/22/sig-sauers-338-norma-magnum-light-machine-gun/
https://www.gd-ots.com/armaments/individual-crew-served-weapons/lightweight-medium-machine-gun/


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Nice, I've seen the C7 MMR upgrades. Pretty nice.
> 
> I believe Sako has a successful 308/338 multical platform. That's a bolt action though, this project sounds like they're aiming for a 338 semi auto. Making it semi-auto is really going to add to the size. Worth while having a 308 in a chassis designed for a 338 semiauto?



A bigger rifle might not solve all your longer range issues. I'd be happier if we just had more (regular sized) artillery


----------



## OceanBonfire (15 Dec 2020)

Some are already off the assembly line with final deliveries expected in early 2021:









> https://www.facebook.com/NationalDefenceGC/photos/a.130558280902662/768073673817783/
> 
> https://twitter.com/NationalDefence/status/1338559380518699008
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/2DivCA.2CanDiv/posts/3716612678398715


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2020)

Is it true we're looking at $30,000 per rifle?


----------



## dangerboy (15 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is it true we're looking at $30,000 per rifle?



I am not overly familiar with the project but they probably came up with that figure by dividing the cost of the project by the number of rifles. There is more to a project than that, the cost would also include the accessories, training, spare parts, publications and other projects costs such as sending people to the range to test the weapons.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is it true we're looking at $30,000 per rifle?



In a word, no.

The project has delivered a variety of sniper equipment including rifles. As previously noted, accessories for the rifles, spares, ammo etc would be included, as would salaries of staff employed on the project, as would other items of equipment.  Per the web page of the project, they also acquired night vision equipment, optics, cameras, concealment and personal protective equipment.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/sniper-systems-project.html

Note that the page is seven years old, so there may well have been changes in approach and scheduling over the life of the project.  For example, there have been projects where requests went to industry and no one offered a solution that met the standard or was within the budget available; in other instances, equipment integration failed and Canada had to return for new tenders; in still other cases, as further definition work was conducted, it was discovered that there were better ways to sequence an acquisition.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2020)

Thanks.  That still seems like a lot to pay.  Wouldn't the rifle, scope, accessories all be basically off the shelf? I'm guessing they aren't designing this stuff from scratch. It seems strange to include peoples salaries in cost to the DND.


----------



## Weinie (15 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In a word, no.
> 
> The project has delivered a variety of sniper equipment including rifles. As previously noted, accessories for the rifles, spares, ammo etc would be included, as would salaries of staff employed on the project, as would other items of equipment.  Per the web page of the project, they also acquired night vision equipment, optics, cameras, concealment and personal protective equipment.
> 
> ...



Only in Canada you say......pithy.


----------



## Haggis (15 Dec 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks.  That still seems like a lot to pay.  Wouldn't the rifle, scope, accessories all be basically off the shelf?



in some cases, yes. But we are talking high end accessories, some with proprietary features.  The suppressor itself is likely a custom piece, for example, and not manufactured in Canada.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It seems strange to include peoples salaries in cost to the DND.


 Project costs routinely account for the salaries of the people who design, build, market and sell stuff.  Nobody works for free.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Project costs routinely account for the salaries of the people who design, build, market and sell stuff.  Nobody works for free.



Exactly.  There are a variety of reports to government, where DND/CAF is required to account for every penny (well, nickel nowdays).  If we did not report staff salaries for those actively engaged in defining and implementing projects as their full time job as project expenses, where would we attribute them?


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If we did not report staff salaries for those actively engaged in defining and implementing projects as their full time job as project expenses, where would we attribute them?



Do we fire them after they're done with that specific project, or do they move on to another project? If they're staying employed, it's a little disingenuous to keep accounting for them in each specific project as they're permanent full time employees in DND.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Exactly.  There are a variety of reports to government, where DND/CAF is required to account for every penny (well, nickel nowdays).  If we did not report staff salaries for those actively engaged in defining and implementing projects as their full time job as project expenses, where would we attribute them?



That makes sense. I was thinking you meant account for Colt Canada employee's.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do we fire them after they're done with that specific project, or do they move on to another project? If they're staying employed, it's a little disingenuous to keep accounting for them in each specific project as they're permanent full time employees in DND.



It's both military pay and civilian pay that is attributed to the activity that the individual is doing.  The main project implementation Level 1s (ADM Mat, ADM IM and ADM IE) actually plan projects in part based on availability of personnel to do the work - in theory, the RCEME Capt who works to deliver the MK III Whatchamacallit can leverage that experience when she then moves on to be a Major working on the Mk II Thingamabob.

How then would you account for personnel costs associated with delivering projects if not against the projects?  To be fair, it is an accounting question that is sometimes the subject of debate.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's both military pay and civilian pay that is attributed to the activity that the individual is doing.  The main project implementation Level 1s (ADM Mat, ADM IM and ADM IE) actually plan projects in part based on availability of personnel to do the work - in theory, the RCEME Capt who works to deliver the MK III Whatchamacallit can leverage that experience when she then moves on to be a Major working on the Mk II Thingamabob.
> 
> How then would you account for personnel costs associated with delivering projects if not against the projects?  To be fair, it is an accounting question that is sometimes the subject of debate.



We do this with our (civvy consulting) projects sometimes, especially when a client wants to see how much staff time has been saved so they can reallocate it to more value added activities.

It's seldom 100% accurate, and is usually based on a guesstimate of what an hour of 'full time employee' time is worth, but it's a good way to get s sense of the true cost, or cost savings, related to projects being funded with public cash.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> How then would you account for personnel costs associated with delivering projects if not against the projects?  To be fair, it is an accounting question that is sometimes the subject of debate.



Those PYs in project management are there to stay so they should be accounted for under a large "DND Project Management" header. How deep does the current accounting go? Do they cover the phone line costs for each individual? Blackberries? IS/IT assets? DND building lease/GILT? Heat/AC? Power usage? Water usage? If you're going to account for each individual PY, you're not getting a full cost analysis unless you figure out how many #2s are completed each day by the Project Team and what that sewage cost is to the Crown. My guess there's probably a lot of them completed... ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Those PYs in project management are there to stay so they should be accounted for under a large "DND Project Management" header. How deep does the current accounting go? Do they cover the phone line costs for each individual? Blackberries? IS/IT assets? DND building lease/GILT? Heat/AC? Power usage? Water usage? If you're going to account for each individual PY, you're not getting a full cost analysis unless you figure out how many #2s are completed each day by the Project Team and what that sewage cost is to the Crown. My guess there's probably a lot of them completed... ;D



Dude.... don't make suggestions like that on a public forum. After all, big consulting companies might be watching - and thinking


----------



## CBH99 (18 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Those PYs in project management are there to stay so they should be accounted for under a large "DND Project Management" header. How deep does the current accounting go? Do they cover the phone line costs for each individual? Blackberries? IS/IT assets? DND building lease/GILT? Heat/AC? Power usage? Water usage? If you're going to account for each individual PY, you're not getting a full cost analysis unless you figure out how many #2s are completed each day by the Project Team and what that sewage cost is to the Crown. My guess there's probably a lot of them completed... ;D




Great.  Now we need another HQ to closely analyze all of these things & factor in the costs, which truly don't matter because it's a given part of leasing office space.  People need to poop.


Sorry 1PPCLI, have a company worth of folks interested in an amazing career in Ottawa?

No?  Too bad.  


(But wait, who is going to keep track of the sewage bills of the new HQ?  We need another!)


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Dec 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Great.  Now we need another HQ to closely analyze all of these things & factor in the costs, which truly don't matter because it's a given part of leasing office space.  People need to poop.



I'm sure DLR, DLCSPM, and whatever RCN and RCAF have for project offices can figure out how to count PYs and fill spreadsheets without creating a new HQ.


----------



## IRepoCans (18 Dec 2020)

The C20 SASW is not replacing the C14 MRSWS, nor is it intended to be a multicaliber platform (if it were, the secondary chambering would probably be 6.5mm not .338); the program is to replace the fleet of AR-10Ts and the EIS that came with the system (or more likely purchased by the employing elements specifically).

The C21 is the planned replacement for the C14 (which replaced the C3), which will be multicaliber (7.62 for training, and .338 for operations) similar in some scope to the American Mk. 22 ASR which is chambered in 7.62 for training; .300 Norma for anti-personnel; .338 Norma for anti-material; and, it can also take a few different calibers (like 6.5 Creedmoor which is being phased in amongst existing and planned USASOC marksman / sniper platforms).

C15 has no planned replacement yet, but depending how the C21 program goes you could see the calibers chambered increased and the need for the C15 to deliver anti-material effects diminished (and I think the folks behind it are watching the Mk22 very closely because the Americans are dropping their .50s in the anti-material role).


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Dec 2020)

Following


----------



## OceanBonfire (2 May 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521144931292696576


----------



## KevinB (5 May 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521144931292696576


Well the use of the Grip-pod told me all I needed to know.
  Probably wearing Ronald McDonald shoes too...


----------



## Fabius (5 May 2022)

Ya the Grip-Pod caused me to do a double take... oh well.  
Any idea why the front of the receiver is angled like that? Just so its special?


----------



## KevinB (5 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> Ya the Grip-Pod caused me to do a double take... oh well.
> Any idea why the front of the receiver is angled like that? Just so its special?


It’s Colt’s beleaguered multi cal receiver.   You can replace the magazine well section so it can run M16 mags and change the upper you have a large 5.56mm gun.

Apparently a sucker is borne every minute as no-one else who has tested it wants anything to do with it.


----------



## Fabius (5 May 2022)

Roger, Thanks. Why am I not surprised.


----------



## KevinB (5 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> Roger, Thanks. Why am I not surprised.


Non Competed contract - due to the whole Colt Canada Small Arms Monopoly/Right of First Refusal


----------



## Fabius (5 May 2022)

True, and I do see strategic value in that, just sometimes the results are unfortunate.  At times I think it would be nice for it to be a GoC owned contractor operated facility.  
People do seem happy with the C20 overall though which is good.


----------



## dapaterson (5 May 2022)

GoCo has its own range of problems too.  In theory, contractors with right if first refusal have more incentive to seek out additional revenue streams than GoGo or GoCo enterprises.


----------



## KevinB (5 May 2022)

Fabius said:


> True, and I do see strategic value in that, just sometimes the results are unfortunate.  At times I think it would be nice for it to be a GoC owned contractor operated facility.
> People do seem happy with the C20 overall though which is good.


Admittedly when you compare it to an AR-10, you can't do much worse 

I am not a fan of private industry, especially foreign private industry, (now in this case CZ, a Czech company), owning ones domestic Arsenal.    

I think the way the weapons of the 80's trial was done correctly -- the CAF holds a competition - and the winner is built by the National Arsenal - ideally again a GOC entity.   If you don't want it to be a sole GOC entity, then do it the way that we run Lake City ammunition plant, have a competition and the winner runs it for X years, but the government etc owns all the tooling, production and technical Data.


----------



## Dale Denton (5 May 2022)

This is off topic, but we should be doing the above across the board with hygienic products, PPE, vaccine/medications to munitions, fleets of vehicles to rifles. Canadian workers making licenced and proven designs in Canada. 

If Colt Canada or CZ chose to close its doors, it would be prudent to take it over or have a 50% stake in a new venture. A Canadian Naval Group but army-centric.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 May 2022)

dapaterson said:


> GoCo has its own range of problems too.  In theory, contractors with right if first refusal have more incentive to seek out additional revenue streams than GoGo or GoCo enterprises.


I lack faith that we have actual contract mechanisms to prevent the right of first refusal from being abused (for example, by taking some work on but continually bumping it, or never actually quoting or rejecting the work, preventing it from going elsewhere), or the fortitude to apply them even if they exist. Some GoCo setups are working great, others not so much.  🤷‍♂️

I scream into an internal void of despair every time I hear a PSPC rep talk about 'fair and transparent processes' (or whatever the procurement lingo of the day is) because it seems to proceed capitulating on some kind of contractual right we should be able to exercise. Sure, we just pay for that substandard equipment that doesn't meet the spec because little Jimmy Co says it's fine, no reason why it isn't as good as the much more expensive bid that actually meets the various shock and other Legitimate Operational Requirements we have, or generally accept poor work quality for various political or other non-technical reasons.

Given that DND is theoretically clients of PSPC, drives me crazy we can't fire crappy procurement officers, lawyers etc when they autocratically start taking decisions that directly impact projects that they have no actual responsibility to deliver or be responsible for the schedule or budget. Have only seen it happen once, and was because they added some specific SACC clauses against both the project manager objections and bidder recommendations (from the RFI) and a critical procurement failed because no one would bid on it because of that specific SACC. Cost us millions to scramble to keep things running and had to get an emergency extension to an existing support contract that it was supposed to have replaced. In that case I think it went up to at least the DG level (possibly higher) to get all our work pulled away from that team.


----------

