Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[daftandbarmy]

Personally I want to stab everyone who still talks about bayonets.

 

[PrairieFella]

Mindboggling that the louder, flashier short barrels aren't getting cans.

Certainly seems bass ackwards haha

 

[ArmyRick]

Personally I want to stab everyone who still talks about bayonets.

You need a bayonet to do that

 

[Genetk44]

Mindboggling that the louder, flashier short barrels aren't getting cans.

Seems very counter-intuitive

 

[Kirkhill]

How long does it take to decide on a rifle?
And what are the consequences if you get it wrong?
Danish Logistics Organization record on buying Canadian rifles.

 

[KevinB]

How long does it take to decide on a rifle?

The M-16 was acquired by the US Army as an interim weapon to replace the M-14…
I’ll spare everyone the multiple page small arms history lecture and go with the short TLDR version
The M-14 was an Ordnance pet that was rammed through despite the FAL being a better performer. As well as forcing NATO into the M-80 7.62 round.

There have been 7 failed M-16 replacement programs since the 60’s, and the 8th (Next Gen Squad Weapons M-7 and M-250) isn’t looking great.

And what are the consequences if you get it wrong?

Well if you look at the initial M-16 fielding in Vietnam, a lot.
Cheaping out on chrome (original test guns had chrome chamber and bore, and chrome carrier and bolt, combined with using left over powder from the 30-06 and 7.62 lead to excessive fouling, combined with no initial cleaning kit and lack of chrome lead to significant reliability issues.

In the current context, 5.56mm is having a rebirth as a high pressure cartridge. While carbines designed for 5.56mm NATO can fire 5.56mm HP, they do so with greater recoil, lowered reliability and increased maintenance requirements (both cleaning and parts replacement).

Now, generally the only difference in the 5.56 HP guns is in the upper - so if you don’t mind replacing uppers to standardize on 5.55mm HP, then it is no big deal, figure $1,000-2,000 per upper setup for 5.56mm HP.

However as SOCOM learned (ish) from the SCAR Program, just because one 7.62mm system works with your VAS and MFAL’s it doesn’t mean your new gun will, and a $2k carbine is a lot cheaper than a bunch of 10k+ Inline Night Vision systems if your carbine keeps trashing them.

 

[Kirkhill]

The M-16 was acquired by the US Army as an interim weapon to replace the M-14…
I’ll spare everyone the multiple page small arms history lecture and go with the short TLDR version
The M-14 was an Ordnance pet that was rammed through despite the FAL being a better performer. As well as forcing NATO into the M-80 7.62 round.

There have been 7 failed M-16 replacement programs since the 60’s, and the 8th (Next Gen Squad Weapons M-7 and M-250) isn’t looking great.

Well if you look at the initial M-16 fielding in Vietnam, a lot.
Cheaping out on chrome (original test guns had chrome chamber and bore, and chrome carrier and bolt, combined with using left over powder from the 30-06 and 7.62 lead to excessive fouling, combined with no initial cleaning kit and lack of chrome lead to significant reliability issues.

In the current context, 5.56mm is having a rebirth as a high pressure cartridge. While carbines designed for 5.56mm NATO can fire 5.56mm HP, they do so with greater recoil, lowered reliability and increased maintenance requirements (both cleaning and parts replacement).

Now, generally the only difference in the 5.56 HP guns is in the upper - so if you don’t mind replacing uppers to standardize on 5.55mm HP, then it is no big deal, figure $1,000-2,000 per upper setup for 5.56mm HP.

However as SOCOM learned (ish) from the SCAR Program, just because one 7.62mm system works with your VAS and MFAL’s it doesn’t mean your new gun will, and a $2k carbine is a lot cheaper than a bunch of 10k+ Inline Night Vision systems if your carbine keeps trashing them.

Kev, I will stipulate all the defects you referenced.

Having said that, while waiting for 8 revolutions to materialize how many evolutions has the M16 gone through to get to the current field standard(s)?

My point on the Danes was that they seem to be more inclined to the "fail fast fail often dictum". They buy rapidly and frequently. They regularly adjust their point of aim. And they don't discard kit, the store it and make it available to second and third line forces.

The Brits, conversely, seem to never admit their failures and waste too much effort fixing/hiding them.

Canada buys too few too slowly and tok infrequently.

 

[OldSolduer]

I think at some point the evolution of SA has to reach a point where they just can't be improved that much without a massive expenditure to gain a very few advantages. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Kev, I will stipulate all the defects you referenced.

Having said that, while waiting for 8 revolutions to materialize how many evolutions has the M16 gone through to get to the current field standard(s)?

My point on the Danes was that they seem to be more inclined to the "fail fast fail often dictum". They buy rapidly and frequently. They regularly adjust their point of aim. And they don't discard kit, the store it and make it available to second and third line forces.

The Brits, conversely, seem to never admit their failures and waste too much effort fixing/hiding them.

Canada buys too few too slowly and tok infrequently.

Don’t the Danes not have weapons techs either? Does that mean for their small arms they just use them until something their troop can’t fix then hand them a new rifle?

 

[KevinB]

Kev, I will stipulate all the defects you referenced.

Having said that, while waiting for 8 revolutions to materialize how many evolutions has the M16 gone through to get to the current field standard(s)?

My point on the Danes was that they seem to be more inclined to the "fail fast fail often dictum". They buy rapidly and frequently. They regularly adjust their point of aim. And they don't discard kit, the store it and make it available to second and third line forces.

The Brits, conversely, seem to never admit their failures and waste too much effort fixing/hiding them.

Canada buys too few too slowly and tok infrequently.

Oh I am totally with you.

I joined the CAF in 1987 and was issued a C1A1, a few years later got issued a C7 (Weapons of the 80's/SARP was concluded when I joined, but the C7/8's and C9's where not yet in fully scale issue).
A few years later we got issued the C7A1 and C79 (black rubber cover) optic.
Then C7A2 with C79 (green rubber cover) , and C8SFW with EOTech.

The C7A2 was an idiot program, missing all of the LL from Afghanistan.

Don’t the Danes not have weapons techs either? Does that mean for their small arms they just use them until something their troop can’t fix then hand them a new rifle?

No they have armorers. They cascade a lot of weapons from their SOF to the GPF, which then inform the GPF requirements.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The C7A2 was an idiot program, missing all of the LL from Afghanistan.

An appalling franken-rifle, sadly...

Please, for we less fully in the know, how the hell did that happen?

 

[KevinB]

An appalling franken-rifle, sadly...

Please, for we less fully in the know, how the hell did that happen?

The LCMM at the time thought he knew better than the users…

There was also a budget issue and changing barrel lengths and adding an actual modular handguard didn’t mesh with their concept.
There was clear bias toward the Pitchfork due to the designer, and also not going direct to the OEM for handguards and choosing a quote to buy separately from Colt Canada saw a near 300% price increase. Meanwhile CANSOF was getting C8SFW uppers and C8CQB uppers with the M4 RAS at only a slight markup for the Rail.

The Charging Handle mess, and Ambi Controls where another odd ball, and LCMM driven as opposed to user.

Let’s not get into buying more obsolete items like PAC-4C’s and the 6V Surefire Ring mounted lights.