Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[KevinB]

I agree that the optic piece is maybe the most interesting part of the program along with an actual MLOCK forend and suppressor. The rifle itself is as has been said just another M4/M16/C7/C8.
Slight amendment to my earlier post the optics are as follows:

Fixed 5x Optic from Sig with red dot
Fixed 5x Optic from Steiner with red dot
LPVO 1-6x from Burris with red dot ( Assuming the RT-6 with Fast Fire)
LPVO 1-6 from Primary Arms with no red dot (Assuming the SLx series)

Jesus wept.

I am surprised they did not go with a balance of red dot only, 1-6 LPVO, 1-8 LVPO and then 1-10 LPVO with perhaps a top mounted micro and then off set micro. That along with some different reticle options would be an interesting trial.

Logic being not a major factor

As an aside in terms of the PWTs, initial indications seem to be that the new rifle/carbine PWTs are more difficult to pass and that shooters will need to actually fire more practices. The PWT 1 standing grouping at 100m seems to have a particularly high failure rate.

Weird. Maybe not used to the weight of the can upfront. Or the mirage off the can is affecting them?

I’m offended about no folding stock too

But honestly when issuing a suppressor, one needs to think about burn protection for the users/equipment (I’ve made a Blackhawk smolder before but putting a hot can down on the deck), as well as thermal and visual mitigation
My current recommendation is ModTac’s suppressor cover made from high temp carbon fiber - they attach via MLOK, and have a QD ring to remove when you want to take the can off the clean the barrel.

 

[Fabius]

The new PWT results I mentioned were all with the existing C7/Elcans. Have not yet seen anything done with the CMAR trials, I don't think they are out yet, I did see November of 2024 for a rough start date.
I imagine the can will just make the standing scores worse although that will depend on where the overall balance is on that rifle configuration likely.

 

[QV]

The new PWT results I mentioned were all with the existing C7/Elcans. Have not yet seen anything done with the CMAR trials, I don't think they are out yet, I did see November of 2024 for a rough start date.
I imagine the can will just make the standing scores worse although that will depend on where the overall balance is on that rifle configuration likely.

Its probably the highly polished crown scraped clean with a leatherman to avoid extra duties at QM turn-in.

 

[Fabius]

Managed to confirm the Optics being trialed. Interestingly the Optics being trialed are NOT the Optic of the actual Optic that will be selected. The optics are merely to expose the trial participants to fixed vs variable optics. Interestingly as well the CAF is developing its own proprietary reticle that will be part of a separate trial. That reticle is currently in testing/development with an Industry OEM.
Burris RT-6 1-6x24
Primary Arms SLx6 1-6x24
Steiner T536 5x36
Sig Sauer Bravo 5 x32

 

[brihard]

Managed to confirm the Optics being trialed. Interestingly the Optics being trialed are NOT the Optic of the actual Optic that will be selected. The optics are merely to expose the trial participants to fixed vs variable optics. Interestingly as well the CAF is developing its own proprietary reticle that will be part of a separate trial. That reticle is currently in testing/development with an Industry OEM.
Burris RT-6 1-6x24
Primary Arms SLx6 1-6x24
Steiner T536 5x36
Sig Sauer Bravo 5 x32

So are those optics being trialed to determine the preferred characteristics for a combat optic, which CAF will then tender with a custom reticle?

 

[Fabius]

So are those optics being trialed to determine the preferred characteristics for a combat optic, which CAF will then tender with a custom reticle?

That is correct as far as I understand.

 

[KevinB]

Odd choice of optics to use regardless. I mean we have 4 fielded 1-6 down here and 2 1-8’s…

None of those are in the trial…

 

[PuckChaser]

Jesus, just get Elcan SpecterDRs. Canadian company, 1-4 optic, has a reflex sight on the top and works just fine. We'll spend 3 years trialling stuff and end up with them anyways because of IRB.

 

[KevinB]

Jesus, just get Elcan SpecterDRs. Canadian company, 1-4 optic, has a reflex sight on the top and works just fine. We'll spend 3 years trialling stuff and end up with them anyways because of IRB.

I used to like you…

Honestly I’m glad the SpecterDR isn’t being trialed as it’s one of the worst option out there.

Colt Canada is uniquely positioned to supply the weapon and accessories without complaint due to it’s whole right of first refusal — which is how the GPF got EoTech’s as CC had a SKU for a 16” SFW upper with it (some creative writing removed the RAS added the pitchfork and the C8FTHB was born)

I really despise the 12 O’clock MRDS folks in the head, it was tried back pre GWOT, it can work in a sniper rifle - but a offset red dot is significantly better - as one doesn’t need to turkey neck and can just rotate the rifle a tad — that said, it’s a nice to have item, not a need to have. With a decent MFAL one can use the aiming laser (even in bright daylight) to use on close targets or really awkward positions- quickly.

 

[PuckChaser]

I used to like you…

Honestly I’m glad the SpecterDR isn’t being trialed as it’s one of the worst option out there.

Concur there are tons of better options, but how many are Canadian companies? C79 was an awful sight, and I wasn't a fan of SpecterDR myself when I got to try one but IRB is a hell of a drug and the reason why we get so much middle of the road stuff. As a general issue sight to the greater CAF it's probably "good enough".

 

[KevinB]

Concur there are tons of better options, but how many are Canadian companies? C79 was an awful sight, and I wasn't a fan of SpecterDR myself when I got to try one but IRB is a hell of a drug and the reason why we get so much middle of the road stuff. As a general issue sight to the greater CAF it's probably "good enough".

The trick is to have CC build the variant the CA wants, kitted out with the accessories.

Then no problem.

In the ideal world they would get a new MFAL and WML too, but that may impact the program budget significantly.

 

[Fabius]

In the ideal world they would get a new MFAL and WML too, but that may impact the program budget significantly.

Agreed. I’m thinking the MFAL is part of the night vision system program, it’s definitely not part of the CMAR.
Unfortunately as far as I’m aware a WML isn’t even on the radar of the CA whether it’s DLR or the field force.

Additionally the CMAR and NVS programs are significantly underfunded right now. According to some estimates from Colt the CMAR C8A4 could become reality for the CA in under a year if funding was available and the CA and CAF/DND/PGWSC decision markers gave a go order.

 

[Fabius]

Based on a Facebook post from 38 CBG showing off an April 2024 Urban Operations Course in Gagetown with the Infantry School, I was surprised to see the students running EOTECH 512s.
I didn’t realize that the Infantry school had held on to and is actively using EOTECH 512s.

I guess based on that the CMAR optics are better.

 

[KevinB]

Uhm I don’t think the 512 has been built in at least 15 years…

 

[MilEME09]

Based on a Facebook post from 38 CBG showing off an April 2024 Urban Operations Course in Gagetown with the Infantry School, I was surprised to see the students running EOTECH 512s.
I didn’t realize that the Infantry school had held on to and is actively using EOTECH 512s.

I guess based on that the CMAR optics are better.

CMAR optics are going to much better, one of the potential options for the infantry version has a adjustable 20x zoom

 

[brihard]

CMAR optics are going to much better, one of the potential options for the infantry version has a adjustable 20x zoom

For the majority of infantry use I’d say that’s absolutely absurd. Something in the 4-5x range is probably about right, accompanied by a no magnification option- either a RDS on the optic, or a variable magnification ensemble unit.

 

[Fabius]

Agreed. I am not sure what GP infantry would need or want 20x on a service rifle for.
LPVOs are now coming in 6x,8x and 10x but anything above that has typically been sacrificing the bottom end 1x.
Most 20x have a bottom end of around 5x which is not ideal for under 50m.

ACOGs are 4x, legacy Elcan is 3.4x, as examples both of those are pretty much as much magnification as can be reasonably be used in close.

Any of the 6,8,10x magnification options is a good balance of low bottom end for inside 50m while offering enough magnification for PID and precision at normal long ranges for GP infantry without the weight and bulk that will come with a 20x optic.

 

[brihard]

Agreed. I am not sure what GP infantry would need or want 20x on a service rifle for.
LPVOs are now coming in 6x,8x and 10x but anything above that has typically been sacrificing the bottom end 1x.
Most 20x have a bottom end of around 5x which is not ideal for under 50m.

ACOGs are 4x, legacy Elcan is 3.4x, as examples both of those are pretty much as much magnification as can be reasonably be used in close.

Any of the 6,8,10x magnification options is a good balance of low bottom end for inside 50m while offering enough magnification for PID and precision at normal long ranges for GP infantry without the weight and bulk that will come with a 20x optic.

And even at magnification, for most purposes you want some field of view. General purpose optics aren’t turning troops into snipers. Absolutely they’ll have improved ability to ID and hopefully hit a target, but you don’t want to be too magnified and struggle to find/keep your target, or get too much tunnel vision.

 

[KevinB]

1-6 or 1-8x is all that’s needed for most folks. Even the 1-8 and definitely the 1-10 I’d save for a 7.62 or 6.5Creedmore gas gun DM role.

 

[MilEME09]

I'd bet such a high powered optic wouldn't be selected compared to a 8-10x zoom