• 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?

We have the 7-35mm NightForce on the Mk22.
IMG_0599.jpeg
It’s pretty much overkill unless your using the .300NM or .338NM or LM barrels.

My rule of thumb is basically 1x for every 100m of PID you are wanting to around 1200m in good conditions. So 400m PID from a 4x, 600m from a 6x, 800m from an 8x.

Beyond 1200m you often need more than a strict 1-1 relationship of M/X due to atmospheric conditions.

Also quality of glass and quality of coatings will affect the above — what is also needed to take into consideration is of the Optic will be used with Inline VAS, as certain coatings that can increase contrast during daylight can really degrade light transmission when using at night with clips ons.

For LPVO’s (Low Power Variable Optics) I just keep them at 1x with the reticle on, as generally any quick engagements will be inside 200m, where the 1x is generally preferred, and if you see anything further you have time to dial up.
 
I guess the most import aspect is what is the requirement for both engagement and PID desired from the platforms?

The primary image appears to be a CC 11.5" barrel variant - with the HUXWRX 5.56K Flow can, which is realistically a 300m platform at the most for most shooters with issue ammo. Anyone know what barrel lengths CC is offering?
 
Out of total ignorance: how much are/would optics be used as a telescope, or does everyone who wants that sort of thing carry binoculars etc.? Would it then be worth having an optic with better magnification than the rifle it's mounted on can shoot to if it gives Cpl Bloggins better visibility?
 
This whole sight discussion has been super interesting. I don't have much to add on the technical side but I will add that the conversation on magnification here really exposes the glaring hole we have in our platoon/troop orbats - designated marksmen. As far as I'm concerned every line infantry platoon, every assault troop and every recce troop/platoon should have a marksmen in the Pl/Tp HQ. Such a no brainer.
 
Out of total ignorance: how much are/would optics be used as a telescope, or does everyone who wants that sort of thing carry binoculars etc.? Would it then be worth having an optic with better magnification than the rifle it's mounted on can shoot to if it gives Cpl Bloggins better visibility?

It’s an interesting question. Honestly I have not seen binoculars used very extensively although they are available. As a crew commander I carried them always, can’t say the same when acting dismounted.

Getting PID or positive identification is critical though as you can’t kill what you can’t ID and you can’t ID what you can’t see. Like @KevinB said earlier about 1x per 100m range is a good rule of thumb for achieving that PID out to 800-1000 when it changes slightly.

More magnification isn’t always a good thing, it does come with reduced field of view and in the higher magnifications moving past 10-12 you want to have a stable platform.
That’s one reason why you see big game hunters running tripods or shooting sticks at minimum with spotting scopes or even binoculars past about 10x.

An interesting use of the micro red dots on long range precision rifles is having the micro zeroed to the main optics 300-500m zero.
Then with the main optic set at a higher power you put the red dot on the target or immediate target area drop down into the main optic on higher power and pick up the target with minimal searching or adjustment of the power ring.

In terms of the CMAR, I think the trials are all with the 11.5 barrel. I’m aware that there was some early conversations about different barrel lengths for various elements but I think that’s maybe dropping away with the army going with just one length. I would have to confirm that though and I have not had a chance to look into it.
 
FWIW the US Army has two DMR’s / Squad now…


Out of total ignorance: how much are/would optics be used as a telescope, or does everyone who wants that sort of thing carry binoculars etc.? Would it then be worth having an optic with better magnification than the rifle it's mounted on can shoot to if it gives Cpl Bloggins better visibility?
That’s a good question. @Fabius answered pretty much everything.

TBH, regardless of optic, for a lot of things I’m still going to want a separate spotting device.
 
FWIW the US Army has two DMR’s / Squad now…



That’s a good question. @Fabius answered pretty much everything.

TBH, regardless of optic, for a lot of things I’m still going to want a separate spotting device.
Who has the second DMR? Everything I've seen only has one in the alpha team? A second one in the bravo team to round the squad to ten?
 
Who has the second DMR? Everything I've seen only has one in the alpha team? A second one in the bravo team to round the squad to ten?
Honestly I don’t pay enough attention to Big Army to know, I just know the briefed TO&E has 2/squad.

Two Grenadiers w/M320, two DMR w/ M110A1, and 2 LMG, if I have some free time today I’ll dig through it to see where they are by book value.


During the CSASS development, there was a huge argument in the sniper community down here about optics. There were two main camps, as the role of the setup was supposed to be a SSR (Sniper Support Rifle/Carbine). Which some saw as a 1-8 CQBSS for the inside 800m range, as for longer ranges the spotter would be on a spotting device. However some claimed that they needed 18x for PID at 800, as they wanted to use the optic instead of a spotting device. The user Eval was done at Jim Smith’s range outside of Ft Worth Texas.

There was then a lot of argument over lot reticle or not - with the Rangers arguing for it, and the USASOC Group Snipers arguing against. Eventually the Mk6 3-18 w/H59 reticle was decided upon.

I was there for all of that when at KAC, as the plan had been to take the JSOC M110K1 16” barrel gun and make the M110 SASS into it.


However the whole upgrade went into the toilet and became a new program that eventually became the Hk M110A1, which the snipers didn’t want — so then FORSCOM Commander Gen Milley issued a directed requirement for a DMR and the current M110A1 setup used today with the 1-6 Sig optic.
 
Last edited:
Honestly I don’t pay enough attention to Big Army to know, I just know the briefed TO&E has 2/squad.

Two Grenadiers w/M320, two DMR w/ M110A1, and 2 LMG, if I have some free time today I’ll dig through it to see where they are by book value.


During the CSASS development, there was a huge argument in the sniper community down here about optics. There were two main camps, as the role of the setup was supposed to be a SSR (Sniper Support Rifle/Carbine). Which some saw as a 1-8 CQBSS for the inside 800m range, as for longer ranges the spotter would be on a spotting device. However some claimed that they needed 18x for PID at 800, as they wanted to use the optic instead of a spotting device. The user Eval was done at Jim Smith’s range outside of Ft Worth Texas.

There was then a lot of argument over lot reticle or not - with the Rangers arguing for it, and the USASOC Group Snipers arguing against. Eventually the Mk6 3-18 w/H59 reticle was decided upon.

I was there for all of that when at KAC, as the plan had been to take the JSOC M110K1 16” barrel gun and make the M110 SASS into it.


However the whole upgrade went into the toilet and became a new program that eventually became the Hk M110A1, which the snipers didn’t want — so then FORSCOM Commander Gen Milley issued a directed requirement for a DMR and the current M110A1 setup used today with the 1-6 Sig optic.
From what I've heard and read, the C20 has been well received as a DMR and with a .66 MOA, it's more than sufficient for its role. They should be making hundreds of the things and shipping them to every Reg and Res combat arms unit.
 
I’m not tracking the C20 being used in a DMR role in the CA. At least not in the Bns.

The C20s were procured for the CA sniper platoons as a semi auto 7.62x51 sniper rifle to go along side the C15A2 and the C21 bolt guns.

There remains no DMR capability within or planned for the line Bn Infantry Pls or Coys. With only 272 C20s purchased the CA doesn’t have enough of them to expand into a DMR program.
 
The C20 isn’t a (good) DMR candidate either.
Honestly not sure why Colt stuck with the 901 type receiver for it.

1.5MOA gives you minute of chest out to 800+ meters which is fine for what you want a DMR to do, so chrome lining the barrel is a better option (IMHO) as you get a 10k + barrel life as opposed to <5k for the non chromed rifle barrels (especially when using a can)

The 14.5-16” barrel will give you everything you want in a DMR barrel, and more.
 
Was shared on Twitter the 4 optics being tested are the Burris RT-6, Primary Arms SLx6, Steiner T536, and Sig Sauer Bravo 5. I don't know how accurate this is as those first two strike me more as hunting/DMR scopes then battle rifle scopes.
 
Was shared on Twitter the 4 optics being tested are the Burris RT-6, Primary Arms SLx6, Steiner T536, and Sig Sauer Bravo 5. I don't know how accurate this is as those first two strike me more as hunting/DMR scopes then battle rifle scopes.
I’d pick none of the above ;)

In a 1-6x I’m sort of partial to the Leupold Mk6, its eye box is a little less forgiving than some, but the glass and ruggedness is top. I would opt for the Vortex Razor HD 1-6x as the second choice, mainly as I find the glass isn’t as good, especially with an inline VAS in front of it.

I tend to find the 1-8x’s overkill on 5.56mm guns as I mentioned above, and while I have a 14yr old CQBSS H27D on my 14.5” 6.5Creedmore SR25, I think the NightForce ATACR is probably a better optic these days as it’s lighter, and just as durable.

I really don’t like 12 O’clock MRDS for two reasons - you need to change your head position, it remove the 12 spot for a MLRF, a 28-45 degree MRDS is preferable to me for both Sniper Rifles and AR’s, as it’s easier to roll the gun than pop one’s head up and back - plus under stress it’s unlikely one will actually pop one’s head out — based on the findings of most units that tried it back pre GWOT with the ACOG/DrOptic setup. It briefs okay - but tends to fail in actual employment.

Also in days of trying to do a lot more passive shooting it’s much easier to roll the gun, rather than deal with the eye box issues of popping one head up under NOD’s.
 
Those aren’t the optics being considered for the actual C8A4 / CMAR. They are just representative optics that were available for the trial rifles. The actual optic trial is apparently supposed to occur later at an undefined date.

The low powered variable optic class to which the Burris and Primary Arms optics belong is a great combat optic as it gives you a level of magnification for PID and engagements at distance while also offering a 1x capability for short range engagements in complex terrain.

Overall a LPVO is a better combat optic than a fixed power.
 
I’m curious why a CCO and flip X3-4 magnifier isn’t also being looked at.

TBH they aren’t my cup of tea, but I know some folks who swear by them who have some solid resumes.

I’m willing to admit that the CCO’s are better inside 50m than most 1-X LPVO’s simply due to eye box requirements on the tubes.

I’ve also played the golf club gun option for the last 30 years, and it’s not as easy when you aren’t issued 6 different long guns for different mission sets to try to correctly configure 1 weapon for the multiple requirements found.
 
Not going with a CCO to trial is an interesting choice I agree, especially because the CA already has the baseline experience with a fixed power optic in the Elcan. The fixed 5x optics aren’t really going to give much new data other than a BDC reticle but the LPVOs could cover that.
 
Back
Top