Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[KevinB]

PWT 1 is all 5rnd groupings from 100m. Max allowed grouping sizes are as follows: Prone 20cm, Sitting 28cm, Kneeling 28cm and Standing 40cm.

Outrageously generous on the Prone.
Very generous on the Sitting
Generous on the Kneeling
Overly generous on the standing.

PWT 2 is Prone, Snap Prone, Standing to Prone, Kneeling, Standing to Kneeling all done at 200m. It finishes with a 200m to 100m run down into the prone. 10rnds per position with Snap Prone and Standing to Kneeling being 5 exposures of two rounds. Its 60rnds and you need 72 points to pass. Two points if your rnd is inside a 20-40cm box. 1 point if your on paper.

Disappointingly sized box.

PWT 3 is all shot from the prone. Starts with a move from 400 to 300 with 10rnds. Standing to Prone in one exposure for 10rnds at 300m. Snap Standing to prone at 300m with 10rnds. Rapid move from 300 to 200 then 10rnds prone at 200m. 10 x 1 round exposures at 200m from the prone on moving tgts then it finishes with 5 exposures at 200ms with two rounds each again from the prone. 60rnds total and you need 72 points to pass with the same scoring as PWT 2.

Still not thrilled with the scoring box.

PWT 4 has been removed and those elements moved to range practices associated with the various PWT levels. Same with the gas mask shoots.

 

[PuckChaser]

We need generous scoring. The 60 rounds the shooter will fire is probably out of the 100 rounds they'll get all year. You can't build marksmanship like that.

 

[PrairieFella]

We need generous scoring. The 60 rounds the shooter will fire is probably out of the 100 rounds they'll get all year. You can't build marksmanship like that.

Sounds sufficient for purple trades and air force/navy types imo. What the combat arms folk need to get back into is the range practices and treating the PWTs as tests, not the yearly ammo allotment. The best times I had on the range were when we were given a few crates of expiring 5.56 and blasted a few hundred rounds a guy just working on marksmanship principles at different positions. These days though, there never seems to be enough ammo to actually do a full run through. Good luck gets hundreds of 5.56 for a hundred people.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sounds sufficient for purple trades and air force/navy types imo. What the combat arms folk need to get back into is the range practices and treating the PWTs as tests, not the yearly ammo allotment. The best times I had on the range were when we were given a few crates of expiring 5.56 and blasted a few hundred rounds a guy just working on marksmanship principles at different positions. These days though, there never seems to be enough ammo to actually do a full run through. Good luck gets hundreds of 5.56 for a hundred people.

That's a pretty myopic view of purple trades. If they're working in Army units, they should train to an Army standard which should be measured in hundreds of rounds per year per shooter. I also wouldn't want someone who could barely shoot working WASF or Port Security abroad, but that's over to RCAF and RCN for their risk management. I concur with you that annual tests are above and beyond the allotment, not part of it.

 

[PrairieFella]

That's a pretty myopic view of purple trades. If they're working in Army units, they should train to an Army standard which should be measured in hundreds of rounds per year per shooter. I also wouldn't want someone who could barely shoot working WASF or Port Security abroad, but that's over to RCAF and RCN for their risk management. I concur with you that annual tests are above and beyond the allotment, not part of it.

In a perfect world, I agree. In the realistic world I am 100% stealing every bullet not mandated by policy from every purple trade and the RCAF and RCN to ensure my combat arms and Army centric CSS guys actually know how to fight.

I hate that we have to fight for scraps but alas, here we are.

 

[Jarnhamar]

@KevinB @PuckChaser What did you guys not like about the Elcan Specter?

 

[PrairieFella]

@KevinB @PuckChaser What did you guys not like about the Elcan Specter?

Grand Thumb told me it was good and I believe everything that guy says lol.

 

[PuckChaser]

@KevinB @PuckChaser What did you guys not like about the Elcan Specter?

I hate having my face that close to a scope, much like the C79 I had to be way to close. I'd prefer an EOTech and a magnifier.

 

[KevinB]

@KevinB @PuckChaser What did you guys not like about the Elcan Specter?

I’m not as upset about the eye relief as @PuckChaser, but my biggest headache with it is it so often loses zero when switching between 1-4x, or 1.5-6x on that version, just due to the way the prism rotates.

It also sucks when you put an InLine VAS in front of it.

It was the second shortest lived SOPMOD optic down here - after the fucking awful Trijicon Reflex2.0 that barely survived past fielding and was in the trash moments later.

 

[Castus]

In a perfect world, I agree. In the realistic world I am 100% stealing every bullet not mandated by policy from every purple trade and the RCAF and RCN to ensure my combat arms and Army centric CSS guys actually know how to fight.

I hate that we have to fight for scraps but alas, here we are.

That's essentially what he was saying - Army combat support and service support pers need to be able to not only barely defend themselves, but be entirely responsible for their own security, up to and including stand alone convoys in full threat environments, setting up and manning defensive positions (including standing patrols around them) and basic offensive operations.

If I didn't have seven years in the infantry prior to remustering to a combat support trade, I would very hard pressed to know anything about this kind of stuff now. It's a big problem. This goes for marksmanship. I am absolutely aghast at what soldiers (that is - Army) in Ottawa are allotted for musketry practice every year - that is to say, they aren't. We have done SAT training.

 

[Fabius]

The overall initial results from the new PWTs is that they are more difficult to pass, especially if shot cold aside from zeroing.

PWT 1 old and new are very similar but the key difference is in standing. It’s gone from 50cm max to 40cm. It’s also gone from being points for grouping sizes to a pass/ fail for each position. You can’t not group inside 40cm at 100 standing and still pass unlike previously.

The old PWT run down had 40% of its rounds inside 100m. 28/49 rounds inside 200, which with a pass being 29 rounds on paper meant that the 300m engagements could be almost completely off target and still result in a pass. That is no longer true with you needing at least 12/30 hits on paper at 300 to have a chance at passing assuming you got all 30 rounds rounds on paper at 200m.

I am not certain that the new PWT will survive due to the CA being surprised by the failure rates, units not expecting to need more ammo that they weren’t allocated and the infrastructure not present to support moving targets. The push back was almost instant.

 

[brihard]

PWT 4 has been removed and those elements moved to range practices associated with the various PWT levels. Same with the gas mask shoots.

If it’s not a PWT a lot of troops will never shoot it. Just saying.

 

[markppcli]

The overall initial results from the new PWTs is that they are more difficult to pass, especially if shot cold aside from zeroing.

PWT 1 old and new are very similar but the key difference is in standing. It’s gone from 50cm max to 40cm. It’s also gone from being points for grouping sizes to a pass/ fail for each position. You can’t not group inside 40cm at 100 standing and still pass unlike previously.

The old PWT run down had 40% of its rounds inside 100m. 28/49 rounds inside 200, which with a pass being 29 rounds on paper meant that the 300m engagements could be almost completely off target and still result in a pass. That is no longer true with you needing at least 12/30 hits on paper at 300 to have a chance at passing assuming you got all 30 rounds rounds on paper at 200m.

I am not certain that the new PWT will survive due to the CA being surprised by the failure rates, units not expecting to need more ammo that they weren’t allocated and the infrastructure not present to support moving targets. The push back was almost instant.

Those concerns are pretty valid. Especially the infrastructure ones. How exactly they’d expect to implement a test that most bases couldn’t support with out multi million dollar upgrades to ranges. Similarly with an increase demand on time and ammunition. Well mostly the time, realities are that everyone in a Bn needs to pass their PWT3s in the allotted day to get everyone lined up to do the fire and movement coming up. We don’t align our training, generally, to accommodate lots of make ups and retraining periods. It would require a not unsubstantial reorganization of how we conduct our business.

 

[AmmoTech90]

If I didn't have seven years in the infantry prior to remustering to a combat support trade, I would very hard pressed to know anything about this kind of stuff now. It's a big problem. This goes for marksmanship. I am absolutely aghast at what soldiers (that is - Army) in Ottawa are allotted for musketry practice every year - that is to say, they aren't. We have done SAT training.

No idea what unit you are with, but I was in 101 for six years. Myself, and my cubical partners made it a point to go to Connaught at least once every month or two. You could book PWT 1 Rifle and Pistol online. We did the boring stuff (CBRN, etc) once a year. When the range staff got to recognize us we were able to shoot other applications if they weren't busy all day.

Might have changed, but if you didn't shoot in Ottawa you didn't want to.

 

[Fabius]

Those concerns are pretty valid. Especially the infrastructure ones. How exactly they’d expect to implement a test that most bases couldn’t support with out multi million dollar upgrades to ranges. Similarly with an increase demand on time and ammunition. Well mostly the time, realities are that everyone in a Bn needs to pass their PWT3s in the allotted day to get everyone lined up to do the fire and movement coming up. We don’t align our training, generally, to accommodate lots of make ups and retraining periods. It would require a not unsubstantial reorganization of how we conduct our business.

I don’t disagree at all. The entire change and roll out was typical of the CA currently I think. Change management and the alignment of personnel, equipment, training and support etc. is not always well understood or integrated into a change.

The units will keep pushing back on increased marksmanship training like we saw for both the PWTs and the C22 rollout, as long as the infrastructure, time and ammo allocations are not addressed by those rolling out the training changes.

Interestingly I believe that any infrastructure projects inside the RTAs are prioritized a significant magnitude lower than on base infrastructure. It makes getting range upgrades to maintain and improve readiness difficult which given the constant message of needing to increase readiness is interesting to say the least. Limited dollars though.

 

[markppcli]

I don’t disagree at all. The entire change and roll out was typical of the CA currently I think. Change management and the alignment of personnel, equipment, training and support etc. is not always well understood or integrated into a change.

The units will keep pushing back on increased marksmanship training like we saw for both the PWTs and the C22 rollout, as long as the infrastructure, time and ammo allocations are not addressed by those rolling out the training changes.

Interestingly I believe that any infrastructure projects inside the RTAs are prioritized a significant magnitude lower than on base infrastructure. It makes getting range upgrades to maintain and improve readiness difficult which given the constant message of needing to increase readiness is interesting to say the least. Limited dollars though.

And we can ignore that our whole IT to CT pipeline heavily incentivizes people to “pass.” I have no doubt a similar result would occur regardless of the testing changes.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I’m not as upset about the eye relief as @PuckChaser, but my biggest headache with it is it so often loses zero when switching between 1-4x, or 1.5-6x on that version, just due to the way the prism rotates.

It also sucks when you put an InLine VAS in front of it.

It was the second shortest lived SOPMOD optic down here - after the fucking awful Trijicon Reflex2.0 that barely survived past fielding and was in the trash moments later.

I thought they fixed that problem. I don't seem to have it with mine.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Grand Thumb told me it was good and I believe everything that guy says lol.

Garand Thumb.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That's a pretty myopic view of purple trades. If they're working in Army units, they should train to an Army standard which should be measured in hundreds of rounds per year per shooter. I also wouldn't want someone who could barely shoot working WASF or Port Security abroad, but that's over to RCAF and RCN for their risk management. I concur with you that annual tests are above and beyond the allotment, not part of it.

Every man a rifle man first.

 

[ueo]

Every man a rifle man first.

Usta was, during the summer monthe (usually leave time) platoons were encouraged to learn theory of marksmanship (Dry firing, actually ascertaining master eye, etc.) then grab weapons and adjourne to the nearest Big rifle range, Best shots coached, Bisley level oversaw and ammo came by the truck load. Learned more in a week about MOA, windage, weather etc than a full year of basic trg! Also learned how firing over a bayonet made a difference. Also tried Quick kill techniques with 7.62, big difference fm BB guns.