• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

I wasn’t tracking we had decided on optics. Which optics were picked?
Any idea if we are proceeding with our proprietary reticle?
 
They haven't selected any optics yet (just like how the C8A4 might not just be a CC MRR, the ones we're seeing which were the same MRRs they had back when 3RCR got J-Pat for other trials aren't the C8A4: just a testing bed for whatever DLR wants to do with them) they just know the optics package they want to go for, albeit for what I've heard about how much they're looking to pay for the LPVOs, CCOs and their corresponding mounts I doubt we'll even see mounts and LPVOs from middle of the road providers like Vortex, hell their budget for testing couldn't even afford a T2 with a stock mount.

The SOR is still not even finished being drafted or approved by any meaningful authority yet.

All that is known is what they want per package:

Full Spectrum Rifle (stupid ass name btw for fighting line units at ~8000 rifles) with LVPO (may or may not have a piggy backed optic), 14.5" barrel and suppressor.​
General Service Rifle with CCO (may or may not have a paired magnifier), 11.5" barrel and no suppressor.​

I don't understand the reasonable why behind the barrel length disparity between the two, but apparently everyone that isn't in a combat arms unit is getting a shorty.
 
IRepoCans said:
I don't understand the reasonable why behind the barrel length disparity between the two, but apparently everyone that isn't in a combat arms unit is getting a shorty.
Click to expand...

As per the DLR slides on sharepoint, the FS rifle will have better accuracy, and an effective range at the individual level out to 600m (? I can't remember the number right now, I can check when I am back at work). The GS rifle will be slightly less accurate than the FS, but still more accurate than the current C7/8, with an effective range to 400m(? again, can't remember the specific number, I will check tomorrow. But its less than the FS).
 
boredtoon said:
As per the DLR slides on sharepoint, the FS rifle will have better accuracy, and an effective range at the individual level out to 600m (? I can't remember the number right now, I can check when I am back at work). The GS rifle will be slightly less accurate than the FS, but still more accurate than the current C7/8, with an effective range to 400m(? again, can't remember the specific number, I will check tomorrow. But its less than the FS).
Click to expand...
The limiting factors will almost invariably be the shooters, not the rifles or optics. CAF can buy the best whizz bang rifle in the world but it needs to buy a lot more bullets.
 
boredtoon said:
As per the DLR slides on sharepoint, the FS rifle will have better accuracy, and an effective range at the individual level out to 600m (? I can't remember the number right now, I can check when I am back at work). The GS rifle will be slightly less accurate than the FS, but still more accurate than the current C7/8, with an effective range to 400m(? again, can't remember the specific number, I will check tomorrow. But its less than the FS).
Click to expand...
Mate, with reasonable ammo, a decent appreciation for connection to the gun and the appropriate firing position you can push to 500-600m effectively with an 11.5 with a reasonable amount of meaningful training/coaching.

I've seen the slide show you are referring to, but the muzzle velocity difference between an 11.5 and 14.5 isn't much, and the barrel/gun have a relatively fixed mechanical accuracy before you throw in the shooter of which 3" of barrel length isn't going to influence as much in the shooters favour.
 
IRepoCans said:
They haven't selected any optics yet (just like how the C8A4 might not just be a CC MRR, the ones we're seeing which were the same MRRs they had back when 3RCR got J-Pat for other trials aren't the C8A4: just a testing bed for whatever DLR wants to do with them) they just know the optics package they want to go for, albeit for what I've heard about how much they're looking to pay for the LPVOs, CCOs and their corresponding mounts I doubt we'll even see mounts and LPVOs from middle of the road providers like Vortex, hell their budget for testing couldn't even afford a T2 with a stock mount.

The SOR is still not even finished being drafted or approved by any meaningful authority yet.

All that is known is what they want per package:

Full Spectrum Rifle (stupid ass name btw for fighting line units at ~8000 rifles) with LVPO (may or may not have a piggy backed optic), 14.5" barrel and suppressor.​
General Service Rifle with CCO (may or may not have a paired magnifier), 11.5" barrel and no suppressor.​

I don't understand the reasonable why behind the barrel length disparity between the two, but apparently everyone that isn't in a combat arms unit is getting a shorty.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that’s all basically what I was tracking but maybe I missed something on the optics decisions.

Those pictures clearly show a mix and match and I should not have maybe called them C8A4s.
I found it amusing that they were running ELCANs with flip up iron sights in the up position with no rears on the guns.
The guy in OD had both front and rear and seemed to be using them along with the EOTECH.
Clearly those aren’t the same as the C8A4/optic/suppressor combo that was travelling around through soldier trials.
 
Remember a large part of the belief that longer barrels equal more accuracy has to do with sight radius and iron sight rifles. The longer the rifle was the longer the sight radius which tended to equal better practical accuracy for iron sight shooters.

Optics have changed that game.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Remember a large part of the belief that longer barrels equal more accuracy has to do with sight radius and iron sight rifles. The longer the rifle was the longer the sight radius which tended to equal better practical accuracy for iron sight shooters.

Optics have changed that game.
Click to expand...

But when bayonet fighting … ;)
 
IRepoCans said:
Mate, with reasonable ammo, a decent appreciation for connection to the gun and the appropriate firing position you can push to 500-600m effectively with an 11.5 with a reasonable amount of meaningful training/coaching.

I've seen the slide show you are referring to, but the muzzle velocity difference between an 11.5 and 14.5 isn't much, and the barrel/gun have a relatively fixed mechanical accuracy before you throw in the shooter of which 3" of barrel length isn't going to influence as much in the shooters favour.
Click to expand...
With high pressure 5.56mm the 11.5” is pushing 700-800m with a decent shooter.

At ISOF, I was shooting Larue’s at 780m with a 11.5” using an EOTech with the contract HP ammo.

I would hope the CAF would future proof the next Gen C8 to be able to use that ammo.
 
KevinB said:
With high pressure 5.56mm the 11.5” is pushing 700-800m with a decent shooter.

At ISOF, I was shooting Larue’s at 780m with a 11.5” using an EOTech with the contract HP ammo.

I would hope the CAF would future proof the next Gen C8 to be able to use that ammo.
Click to expand...
For sure, I just don't understand the need for an 11.5 if they're not even intending to put a can on it (I can tell you that 6 callsigns will definitely gobble up the shorties in the battalion to run cans if there's a choice between 11.5 and 14.5); especially with current suppressor designs allowing you to have a carbine length barrel and a can and have a combined length not exceeding that of a slightly longer carbine length barrel.

I just hope they don't fall into trap of perpetuating ideas and practices from two decades ago that are known to be the result of poor/misaligned training and/or technical limitations: the Army really needs to have a standing marksmanship unit/cell that does competition shooting in IPSC, PRS and USPA to help derive tangible data and feedback to better influence the force. The US Army's Marksman Unit is such a cool place that does some serious work outside of competing.
 
Is having a short suppressor on the 11.5 worth it, even just to reduce muzzle flash and some of the noise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KevinB
    • Like
The Reconnaissance Brigade
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
FJAG
FJAG
The Bread Guy
Jun 2022: "Canadian Military Snipers Getting New Rifles"
Replies
2
Views
10K
Will M
W
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
Optimism
Replies
2
Views
9K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
    • Like
LSTs, LAWs and Russia's Potemkin Wars.
2
Replies
24
Views
32K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
daftandbarmy
    • Like
The Management Myth
Replies
11
Views
22K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
Back
Top