# C7 replacement



## shreenan (29 Aug 2011)

What will be the next service rifle? any ideas


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2011)

I doubt we will see anything to replace the C7 family for decades to come; the service rifle concept has reached most practical limits (the training and fortitude of the shooter is the determining factor in rife accuracy and pK these days).

If there is going to be a "replacement" we will probably see a C-7 A3 and A4, incorporating ruggedized parts, lighter weight components and changes to the stock and furnature to make the weapon more ergonomic, combined with vastly imnproves sights (including day/night or even thermal sights). After that, advances in technology and manufacturing wil make weapons like the XM-25 affordable for the infantryman, but we are probably looking 20 years into the future for an affordable m-25 type weapon and ammunition on the scale of individual issue.

A safe prediction wil be a support weapon patterned after the M-25 to suppliment the C-9 or M-203 much sooner.


----------



## shreenan (29 Aug 2011)

Nice thanks for the input!


----------



## Danjanou (29 Aug 2011)

shreenan said:
			
		

> What will be the next service rifle? any ideas









*Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.*




Oh come on someone was going to say it eventually  8)


----------



## SoldierInAYear (29 Aug 2011)

Haha  ;D


----------



## marshall sl (29 Aug 2011)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> *Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Hey, 
just what you see, pal!


----------



## Snaketnk (29 Aug 2011)

Personally, I say phase out the C7, make C8A3s with an RIS on the front the new general issue weapon. All everyone does is bitch and whine so they can get a C8 anyway.


----------



## REDinstaller (30 Aug 2011)

There is no way a clerk requires a C8A3 to do any of their duties. Unless that is what their Sqn has issued them, but unless you are part of an "A" veh crew there is little requirement of the LCF of a carbine.


----------



## Loachman (30 Aug 2011)

Is there any way that clerks need full-length rifles to do any of their duties?

Is there any reason _*not*_ to make the C8 "the new general issue weapon" as Snaketnk suggested?


----------



## Infanteer (30 Aug 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> Personally, I say phase out the C7, make C8A3s with an RIS on the front the new general issue weapon. All everyone does is ***** and whine so they can get a C8 anyway.



Agreed.  As I've argued elsewhere here, studies seem to indicate that the Rifle, in a firefight, is not really effective at anything.  If we accept this data, then the Rifle is a personal defence weapon to keep the real killers, the crew served weapons, rocking.

Anything that makes personal defence at the 100m or less range a bit easier is good in my books.


----------



## Danjanou (30 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Agreed.  As I've argued elsewhere here, studies seem to indicate that the Rifle, in a firefight, is not really effective at anything.  If we accept this data, then the Rifle is a personal defence weapon to keep the real killers, the crew served weapons, rocking.
> 
> Anything that makes personal defence at the 100m or less range a bit easier is good in my books.



Or this was a serious thread...oops :-[

Posting from work so no easy access to my reference library, so I may be wrong here, but didn't the IDF go this route in the 1960's replacing large numbers of their older WW2 vintage rifles and FN varients in Infantry units with SMGs under the principle they were only needed to protect hte crew served weapons (HMGS, Mortars, AT etc)? As I remeber they quickly developed the Galil soon after.


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Aug 2011)

As true as that may be; equating the C8 to an SMG isn't exactly fair. The disparity in effective range is immense.

Whereas the effective ranges of the C7 ad C8 are practically the same in my experience.


----------



## Spooks (30 Aug 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> Personally, I say phase out the C7, make C8A3s with an RIS on the front the new general issue weapon. All everyone does is ***** and whine so they can get a C8 anyway.



C8A3 is standard issue with an EOTECH. Although it does meet the '100m or less' that Infanteer suggested, I personally do not like the accuracy of a holosight for things _at_ that 100m. Decreasing the range of service rifles would significantly change the infantry doctrine which would then also:

-Need changes to all doctrine PAMs (equals $$$)
-Retrain up all infantry on new SOPs (equals $$$)

Therefore, would the cost of 'replacing all sercive rifles with the A3' be much larger once you consider those things?


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Aug 2011)

I wasn't aware the A3s came with EOTechs. I think we should remain with a magnified optic (it's just too damn useful to ditch). Honestly, I've never seen A3s go through our stores. I've only ever seen MPs with them. 

So, negative on changing the sights, or the PAMs, or the SOPs... just the rifle.


----------



## Franko (30 Aug 2011)

GhostofJacK said:
			
		

> C8A3 is standard issue with an EOTECH. Although it does meet the '100m or less' that Infanteer suggested, I personally do not like the accuracy of a holosight for things _at_ that 100m.



Don't know about your weapon, but my C8A3HB could hit the center of mass at 300m. 

Mind you the dot took up the entire center of mass.

Regards


----------



## Redeye (30 Aug 2011)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> *Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I adrep one for myself before EVERY exercise. And I will keep doing so until I get one.

"Only what you see, pal!"


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Aug 2011)

Don't know if this has been thought of, but maybe a bolt mechanism with a little more fault tolerance in harsher climates? (extreme cold, dry, sandy areas, etc.)

The C7(8A,1,2,3,abcdefg Mitten) family bolt system and I have come to hate one another due to its tendancy to jam when it isn't optimal firing  conditions (i.e. a nice balmy 26 degree day, with no sand or moisture to be heard of). Perhaps something that can work well up North as well as in a desert?

Just my  :2c:


----------



## chrisf (30 Aug 2011)

There's bit and pieces on the market to increase the reliability of the AR-15 family, for both the rifle, and the magazine... some of good quality, some of terrible quality.... all stuff that could be integrated into an A4 model, some already in use but not "standardized"


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Aug 2011)

Magpul E-Mags? 16$ a pop and they worked great in Afghanistan... Most of the stoppages I witnessed were a result of dust collecting inside the mags.


----------



## Thompson_JM (30 Aug 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> There is no way a clerk requires a C8A3 to do any of their duties. Unless that is what their Sqn has issued them, but unless you are part of an "A" veh crew there is little requirement of the LCF of a carbine.



The "B" Veh crews could use em just as much.... I had a hell of a time trying to get my C7A2 in and out of an HLVW when I was over there... When I did have a C8 on Swamper duties I found it to be a lot easier to use in, out, and around the vehicle, and would take it over a pistol any day.... 

I think the general thought should be that if you are Mech, a C8 (esp the new C8A3) would be a very useful piece of kit to have.


----------



## chrisf (30 Aug 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> Magpul E-Mags? 16$ a pop and they worked great in Afghanistan... Most of the stoppages I witnessed were a result of dust collecting inside the mags.



Could upgrade the springs and followers in all existing mags for about $2 a mag.  Then replace as required with improved mags.


----------



## Pusser (30 Aug 2011)

I'll say it.  I miss the FN C1A1.  If you ran out of bullets, you still had a pretty hefty club.


----------



## Danjanou (30 Aug 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> As true as that may be; equating the C8 to an SMG isn't exactly fair. The disparity in effective range is immense.
> 
> Whereas the effective ranges of the C7 ad C8 are practically the same in my experience.



Seen, and I wasn't equating the two (I'm old enough to have used both and well aware of the major differences  8)) just pointing out if we start down a potential slippery slope of "smaller= good" it may not go where we want. Add in the Good  Idea Fairies at Disneyland on the Rideau all seeking that "Leading Change" bit for their PERs and you could all end up carying 9mm Brownings as your primary wpn ;D


----------



## Haletown (30 Aug 2011)

I would think it is more not what Canada wants to do WRT small arms/infantry weapons but what the US Army will do.

And they can't seem to make up their minds.

Yet.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2011)

The argument for smaller/lighter/more handy weapons was answered by FN back in the 1990's with the P-90 PDW (and complimentary FiveSeven pistol). To date the major adopter of the system seems to be the SG-1 teams on TV, and even they are clearly using the weapon in an offensive capacity  .

Clearly the arguments about veh drivers, veh crewmen, artillery crews etc. not needing a full length rifle don't seem to have had as much water as the presenters thought.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (2 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I adrep one for myself before EVERY exercise. And I will keep doing so until I get one.
> 
> "Only what you see, pal!"



If it doesn't have an attachment for shooting down police helicopters I'm not interested.

Not that need it...yet.  8)


----------



## brihard (2 Sep 2011)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Don't know about your weapon, but my C8A3HB could hit the center of mass at 300m.
> 
> Mind you the dot took up the entire center of mass.
> 
> Regards



Unless I'm really off the mark here, at 300 the dot in the center of an EOTech should only span a snitch over 3 inches of the target. It's a 1MOA dot, unless the CF has brought in EOTechs with a different reticule pattern?


----------



## s23256 (2 Sep 2011)

A nominal 1 MOA dot may appear considerably larger due to blooming if the brightness is turned up.  When zeroing an EOTech I tend to turn the brightness down as much as possible but in use I'll leave it a bit brighter to account for having to aim into brighter areas.

Just my 2¢


----------



## brihard (2 Sep 2011)

Spinaker said:
			
		

> A nominal 1 MOA dot may appear considerably larger due to blooming if the brightness is turned up.  When zeroing an EOTech I tend to turn the brightness down as much as possible but in use I'll leave it a bit brighter to account for having to aim into brighter areas.
> 
> Just my 2¢



Absolutely a fair point, and not one that I'd considered.


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Sep 2011)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Don't know if this has been thought of, but maybe a bolt mechanism with a little more fault tolerance in harsher climates? (extreme cold, dry, sandy areas, etc.)
> 
> The C7(8A,1,2,3,abcdefg Mitten) family bolt system and I have come to hate one another due to its tendancy to jam when it isn't optimal firing  conditions (i.e. a nice balmy 26 degree day, with no sand or moisture to be heard of). Perhaps something that can work well up North as well as in a desert?
> 
> Just my  :2c:


Sounds like user error...

I took part in the small arms symposium earlier this summer.  A C7 replacement is a LONG way off.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2012)

If you are going to change the service rifle, the first thing you need to ask and answer is "why?".

We might decide we need to because our rifles are worn out and rebuilding them or ordering new builds are no longer practical (not really the case here)

We might need to replace them to be compatable with a new NATO standard (hence the switch from 7.62X51 FN-C1 Battle Rifles to the 5.56X45 C-7 Assault Rifle). This is certainly not a near term prospect.

We might want a new "form factor" to allow troops to work under different conditions. Bullpup rifles were a popular idea to provide mechanized/airmobile troops compact weapons with full lenght barrels in the 1980's, but carabine length weapons like the C8 and M-4 loaded with improved ammunition can provide the same perfomance 

We might want or need to change calibre to deal with evolving threats (various efforts like 6.5 and 6.8mm rounds offer theoretical benefits, but at the cost of rebarreling every rifle and LMG, buying new ammunition stocks etc.)

We might decide new technologies offer far superior performance. Telescoped rounds like LSAT offer superior weight and packaging efficiencies without compromising ballistic performance, or we might decide that explosive rounds like the 25mm M-25 and the OCSW project are more suitable for future combat. Ultimatley we will probably get both compact weapons using something like LSAT, backed by support weapons firing programmable explosive munitions.

I don't see the FN SCAR offering anything like these features and benefits (nor the HK 416/417 series), and stand by my prediction upthread that the C7 will continue to evolve and serve for decades to come.


----------



## LordSnow (9 Jan 2012)

Our current service rifle is light, reliable and with the new additions relatively ergonomic. My beef with it is the length of the barrel, and the hand guards/lack of a rail system.  I will gladly give up 200fps of muzzle velocity for the ease of use in vehicles, urban environments and general handling. Furthermore if all the rifles are the same then you don't have to worry about having different spare parts in the system.
I'm sorry but the majority of the people that want an EOtech want it for the LCF as oppose to close up engagements. 
My second point being the rail system. I have had to go out and get my own, because refuse to put a PEQ2 and a flashlight on the tri-mount they issued me. It would make my rifle twice as wide and put the balance of it way out to the front increasing user fatigue. 
I see the argument of adopting the HK416, it is more reliable then the M16 family and easier to clean and maintain, all the while its very similar so not very much re-training required however,
Thucydides has some very valid points. 
I will try to simplify. Do we *need*a new rifle right now or the near foreseeable future?
Or are people just wanting the new "toy" for the sake of having it?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2012)

The next "evolution" will probably be a replacement of the handguards with ones mounting rail systems. 

After that the best follow on product would be a new sight. A day/night or even a day/night/thermal sight would be quite beneficial, and a sight that incorporated laser rangefinding and a ballistic computer for rifle and underslung grenade launcher rounds would also do nicely. Back in the late 1980's there was a prototype sight called "CLASS" which incorporated day/night vision and a rangefinder with ballistic computer, but that was for GPMG, HMG, 84mm and automatic grenade launchers. With modern technology, this sort of sight could be replicated today with better packaging and lower expense (although the way things are bought by the Government that is probably wishful thinking).


----------



## Snaketnk (13 Jan 2012)

As much as I'd love to have those features, I think for Rifleman #3 many of them might not be worth their weight. Also: Batteries. We had enough trouble keeping NVGs, Surefires and PEQs running without adding thermal/night sights and LRFs to all our weapons. The Elcan is a good sight, I dislike the reticle inside, and it has a couple of durability issues. Yes, it does weigh a bit but every person in a section having a 3.4x optic is extraordinarily useful in all kinds of conflict except extreme UO scenarios. 

But seriously, just give rifle sections C8s with rail fore ends... All C7s do is get caught up on everything and fatigue soldiers.


----------



## MedCorps (13 Jan 2012)

Before we replace the C7 / C8 we will be undergoing the Small Arms Modernization (SAM) project.  The project should be fully defined by March of this year and then procurement for the entire project (Upgrades: C7/C8, ammo, accessories, C6, C9 (maybe).  Replace: pistol, Ranger rifle, M203, .50 Cal. Procure: weapons accessories, weapon sight, sharpshooter capability, reduced weight ammunition) will be completed FY 19/20.  

The SAM project slated to "fix" many of the issues that users are concerned about with the C7 / C8.  For the C7/C8 these include (as of the last briefing I attended before Christmas), a rail system, new rear sling attachment, change to the cocking handle, an issued back up sight, some sort of camouflage system (although I do not know exactly what this is).  They also mentioned that they were going to investigate with users (starting with 1 and 3 RCR) / industry the option of adding a power rail / battery system.   

There is also a line within SAM to procure a whole line weapons accessories, many of them for the C7 / C8 (new slings, magazines, laser aiming devices, cleaning kits, collimators, and suppressors for "specialists (and I do not think they mean orthopedic surgeons in this case  ) 

Finally, the SAM project is also going to procure a new weapons sight.  A combined close quarter / magnification sight with maybe a new reticle. The picture on the ppt slide (which was for illustration purposes only) had what looked like a ACOG sight, with a mini EO tech on top. Not sure if this exists or was a Photoshop. 

The C7/C8 will then be replaced in the Next Generation Small Arms (NGSA) Project.  This will have project definition (not procurement) in 2017-2020, with research on new technology occurring from now to 2017 as part of the NGSA. Once a new weapon system is procured between 2020 and 2026 the C7/C8 will be divested. So it looks like we will have it for awhile. 

There is also one other small arms project in the works.  The Special Weapons and Ammunition (SWA) Project.  It has for procurement between 2017 and 2022 a small inventory of foreign weapons, a breaching weapon (including ammunition varieties and doctrine for the shotgun), a personal defense weapon (and old concept which died some time ago but will be brought back to life) and a modernization / replacement for navy boarding party weapons. 

I hope that is of some interest to you guys, 

MC


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jan 2012)

Great info, hopefully the fixes for the C7/C8 are done before FY 19/20.


----------



## brihard (13 Jan 2012)

Sounds like the ACOG with Dr. Optic mounted on top for close quarters. It certainly exists. Never shot it though. Interesting to hear.

Thanks for the fantastic post, MedCorps. Mind if I ask where you're getting this from? Purely to satisfy my curiosity.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jan 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Sounds like the ACOG with Dr. Optic mounted on top for close quarters. It certainly exists. Never shot it though. Interesting to hear.
> 
> Thanks for the fantastic post, MedCorps. Mind if I ask where you're getting this from? Purely to satisfy my curiosity.



It does indeed exist. There's a guy on Op ATTENTION Roto 1 with that configuration on a C8SFW. One guy, that's all. That I've seen anyhowl


----------



## brihard (13 Jan 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It does indeed exist. There's a guy on Op ATTENTION Roto 1 with that configuration on a C8SFW. One guy, that's all. That I've seen anyhowl




...For OP Attention? Heh. Please tell me he's at least a Force Protection guy.


----------



## Redeye (13 Jan 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ...For OP Attention? Heh. Please tell me he's at least a Force Protection guy.



Nope. He's some sort of Weird Harold Int type.


----------



## Snaketnk (14 Jan 2012)

The guy with the most gucci on his weapon on my tour was a Lisason Officer who never left the wire... the only thing left from the C8 was the reciever and barrel I think.

He couldn't figure out how to zero sight after 7 mags, funnily enough.


----------



## MedCorps (14 Jan 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Thanks for the fantastic post, MedCorps. Mind if I ask where you're getting this from? Purely to satisfy my curiosity.



It was given in a briefing (early Dec) from the Director of Land Requirements 5 (Army Soldier Systems), a LCol T. and his two Maj staff officers. 

MC


----------



## MedCorps (14 Jan 2012)

I think this was the sight in the PPT.  Pretty neat looking.  Again it was provided as an example only, but I am not sure how many duel close quarter / magnification sights are on the market off the shelf... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EQdz-1NrB4

MC


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jan 2012)

I think Canada's problem is that every battle will be in a different place with different needs.


----------



## CountDC (25 Jan 2012)

For us clerks I vote for a Kriss!  http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/kriss-super-v-e.html

Oops this isn't the FPS I play with my son?  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jan 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> For us clerks I vote for a Kriss!  http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/kriss-super-v-e.html
> 
> Oops this isn't the FPS I play with my son?  ;D



Nah - something more like this.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Jan 2012)

Considering how long we kept the Snider in Service, our guys will be carrying the C7/8 while other armies are getting Plasma rifles. 

Owning my on AR has taught me to hate direct impingement type firearms.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2012)

But do HK 416/417 actions offer any real substantive improvements for the rifleman besides making cleaning easier? It might actualy be cheaper and more effective to reformulate the propellant than go to a new rifle/action (or change the conditions we will accept rifles in in terms of cleanliness).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2012)

There is little money and that is getting less 

What we have works well and is proven, there is no need to replace it. It's relatively cheap, hits what it is shooting at and is easily repaired in austere conditions.

It can be tweaked for specific jobs, but is a good solid mechanical platform to base things on.

It's not going anywhere soon. Most designs that are being bandied about will likely be obsolete when we get around to any radical changes.

By all means, keep amused with the discussions of other weapons and wish lists, but don't expect to see anything in quantity come in for a very long time.

 :2c:


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> But do HK 416/417 actions offer any real substantive improvements for the rifleman besides making cleaning easier? It might actualy be cheaper and more effective to reformulate the propellant than go to a new rifle/action (or change the conditions we will accept rifles in in terms of cleanliness).



We over lean things. FNC1 a case in point. Sand, scouring powder, oven cleaner among other abrasive and corrosive materials were used to clean the FN. We wore it out not by shooting it but by over  cleaning it.


----------



## chrisf (27 Jan 2012)

Absurd things and methods still get used to clean C7s, among every other sort of weapon, and we're killing them the same way...

I found one of my troops hacking away his the muzzle crown on a C7 a while back with a screw driver... doesn't matter what the weapon system is if we don't teach people how to use it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jan 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We over lean things. FNC1 a case in point. Sand, scouring powder, oven cleaner among other abrasive and corrosive materials were used to clean the FN. We wore it out not by shooting it but by over  cleaning it.



Are you saying 19Th century RSM's and 20Th century weapons tech does not mix?


----------



## R031button (30 Jan 2012)

ahhhh shiny crowns, never mind that they come new with a black ground, you will scrape and damage the most important part of the rifling !


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Jan 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Are you saying 19Th century RSM's and 20Th century weapons tech does not mix?




21st Century now. Sorry. lol


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2012)

I recall the literature of the AA12 combat shotgun bragging the weapon never needed cleaning and the action was lubricated by the carbon from firing.

While the claim seems somewhat dubious, if it were true you can imagine irate CQ's ranting at troops for wiping the carbon off the action....


----------



## chrisf (30 Jan 2012)

R031button said:
			
		

> ahhhh shiny crowns, never mind that they come new with a black ground, you will scrape and damage the most important part of the rifling !



Nope, gotta scrape them till they shine, usual practice is to scrape them out with the female end of a cleaning rod, but if you're real keen, get a hardened steel screwdriver, and really hack the dirt out. You can tell you've got all the carbon out when you start to come up with metal splinters...

Pro-tip, the lower receiver is an alloy, fairly easy to cut, a few minutes with a drill and some high speed steel drill bits, and you can make plenty of lightening cuts, no problem to drill out up to half a pound.  You don't really need the *entire* mag well....

 >


----------



## CountDC (1 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nah - something more like this.




Oohhh - can I get one for D9? She would love it.


----------



## Redeye (1 Feb 2012)

I find the AK47 crude looking. How about something more modern. (And yes, it's real.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2012)

Perfect weapon for these troops....


----------

