Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[IRepoCans]

Point 1. I cant go into details but the barrels are different

Point 2. I dont think you understand how dramatically the ballistics change with barrel size reduction. If you take the current C7 with a 18.5" barrel and drop that to 12.5". Youll lose 250-350 ft per second in velocity, upto a 25% reduction in kenetic energy, and massively noticeable difference in performance past 300m for the average shooter. CMAR and its new ammo aim to keep those ballistic properties of your 18.5" barrel and meet or exceed them in a 12.5 barrel. Pushing further with the FS.

If the guy's doing the barrels are Canadian, we're not going to see the insane performance gains that hot loaded 5.56 is capable of, full stop (the black magic of barrels at this juncture, oddly enough, is French).

I'm also quite aware of the ballistic change, the current C7 also has a 20" barrel to be more accurate for your calculated loss of velocity with the in-service C77 ball to a 12.5". I'm also saying that the average shooter should be able to touch 400m quite comfortably with the current C8CQBR (let alone a C7 or C8) that has an 11.5/11.6" barrel. The problem at the moment is the shooter, but others and myself have beat that horse to death enough as it is.

The GS platform's barrel length is also a 11.5, be cool if it was a 12.5 but it isn't (I'm honestly a huge fan of AR15s in the 12-13" space given what's possible with barrels and suppressors now). The big question in my mind is if the GS and FS variations will share the same muzzle device (and mounting collar), because I know what I'd rather have in a deliberate OP or hide site if I have a can mounted.

The signed SOR is also accessible enough on acims for anyone who wants to look at what's specified.

The real question is what ballistic energy is required, at what range, and what handling trade off is worth it. There isnt much benefit to have a 400m capable rifle if were expecting infantry soldiers to be clearing trench systems, forests, and houses where that 18 inch barrel is at best a liability. CMAR is a good step forward.

At worst it's an inconvenience, a lot of excuses are made on length before looking at training (or lack thereof). The workhorse of USSOCOM is still a standard length M4A1 with a suppressor for something with a similar overall length of a C7, and that goes for a lot of the AR15s in Ukraine as well.

Not discounting that a shorter profile makes all of that nicer, but I've found that a lot of the time it's more of a skill issue than something inherently wrong with the length of the weapon system. Biggest boon will be for the mounted lads embarking and disembarking.

Can you speak to the optic powers for both variants?

The optics package is in a weird spot, I know they're hard set on a LPVO for the FS which I think got finalized (pretty sure it's the SAI 1-10 power for the FS)? But the CCO with magnifier is all up in the air, and the clip-on sight(s) are also contentious as it might just get pushed off onto NVSM to deal with it.

EDIT: And because there's actually nothing really out on this, anyone know what the solution is going to be with the M203s? Figure they'll just drop them into a standalone kit and call it a day.

 

[MilEME09]

Can you speak to the optic powers for both variants?

GS was looking in the 4-6x, upto 10x zoom was being sought for the FS. I havent seen specs on the final optics chosen

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am reading all the above from you experts and I am starting to think that my old FNC1 with 7.62 cal bullets sounds pretty good ... even if it was heavier.

 

[IRepoCans]

I am reading all the above from you experts and I am starting to think that my old FNC1 with 7.62 cal bullets sounds pretty good ... even if it was heavier.

Well, there's a 7.62 sharpshooter rifle now in the section, doctrinally at least, pretty sure it's just going to be the C20 with a different optic package from the SASR.

 

[markppcli]

Well, there's a 7.62 sharpshooter rifle now in the section, doctrinally at least, pretty sure it's just going to be the C20 with a different optic package from the SASR.

In what doctrine? Like which pub, we briefly had that in Afghanistan but it neither exists in concrete form or in the infantry platoon in battle, that I've read that is.

 

[dangerboy]

In what doctrine? Like which pub, we briefly had that in Afghanistan but it neither exists in concrete form or in the infantry platoon in battle, that I've read that is.

In Section and Platoon in Operations Chapter 2 (dated 21 November 2021) says there is one sharpshooter per section. It does not specify what the rifle is or what calibre it is. It does say that they have 100 rounds in 5 magazines and another 100 in bandoliers, additional magazines or loose rounds.

 

[IRepoCans]

In what doctrine? Like which pub, we briefly had that in Afghanistan but it neither exists in concrete form or in the infantry platoon in battle, that I've read that is.

FYSA, been there for almost five years mate.

It's also what the Vandoos used to start doing a interim sharpshooter program with the C7 a few years ago, honestly, from what I've seen it kind of runs like an ORA service rifle course.

 

[markppcli]

FYSA, been there for almost five years mate.
View attachment 99137
It's also what the Vandoos used to start doing a interim sharpshooter program with the C7 a few years ago, honestly, from what I've seen it kind of runs like an ORA service rifle course.

Well i feel dumb for skipping that over.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, there's a 7.62 sharpshooter rifle now in the section, doctrinally at least, pretty sure it's just going to be the C20 with a different optic package from the SASR.

That was a breakaway by Kingston, and I'm fairly certain implied a sharpshooter at the platoon level. I'm not sure I've seen sharpshooters employed outside of an ad hoc role in Afghanistan, and the R22eR homebrew course was not seen by many in the infantry as being "worth the squeeze." I also believe the sharpshooter has given way to the UAS op in the new Infantry Objective Battalion 203X structures.

 

[PrairieFella]

FYSA, been there for almost five years mate.
View attachment 99137
It's also what the Vandoos used to start doing a interim sharpshooter program with the C7 a few years ago, honestly, from what I've seen it kind of runs like an ORA service rifle course.

I wonder if we go the route of the Brits and ditch an MG in exchange for a sharpshooter rifle at the section level.

 

[IRepoCans]

That was a breakaway by Kingston, and I'm fairly certain implied a sharpshooter at the platoon level. I'm not sure I've seen sharpshooters employed outside of an ad hoc role in Afghanistan, and the R22eR homebrew course was not seen by many in the infantry as being "worth the squeeze." I also believe the sharpshooter has given way to the UAS op in the new Infantry Objective Battalion 203X structures.

I would prefer to have both a sharpshooter rifle and a UAS sensor at the sect level, and I could see a UAS sense/strike system at the pl level within the weapons det/sect. I know the proposed LIR rifle section org is working with both (and bringing back the gun group of old), but who knows how that'll play out.

Well i feel dumb for skipping that over.

They squeaked it in, not too surprised most people glossed over it.

I wonder if we go the route of the Brits and ditch an MG in exchange for a sharpshooter rifle at the section level.

Honestly? The big thing that will influence a lot about how the section will be in the future is UAS, future sect anti-armour/structure weapons and the C9 replacement. But having a sharpshooter would put us in line with ABCANZ/NATO practice (albeit almost everyone but us as the Americans run 7.62 belt feds instead of 5.56 in addition to a sharpshooter).

Big hope for me is that the new CMAR comes with more mags, with 210rds or 180rds being filled in mags and the remainder in a bandolier as a training baseline. Probably going to take a play out of @KevinB's book and mount my own ATACR on it since I find the advertised optic's reticle too busy for me.

 

[markppcli]

I would prefer to have both a sharpshooter rifle and a UAS sensor at the sect level, and I could see a UAS sense/strike system at the pl level within the weapons det/sect. I know the proposed LIR rifle section org is working with both (and bringing back the gun group of old), but who knows how that'll play out.

They squeaked it in, not too surprised most people glossed over it.

Honestly? The big thing that will influence a lot about how the section will be in the future is UAS, future sect anti-armour/structure weapons and the C9 replacement. But having a sharpshooter would put us in line with ABCANZ/NATO practice (albeit almost everyone but us as the Americans run 7.62 belt feds instead of 5.56 in addition to a sharpshooter).

Big hope for me is that the new CMAR comes with more mags, with 210rds or 180rds being filled in mags and the remainder in a bandolier as a training baseline. Probably going to take a play out of @KevinB's book and mount my own ATACR on it since I find the advertised optic's reticle too busy for me.

I think its probably just the lack of ever employing it or seeing it employed that made me gloss over it. Im also generally indifferent to section and platoon sharp shooters, Id prefer to see a CG / NLAW / what ever AT and HE projector in there myself.

 

[IRepoCans]

I think its probably just the lack of ever employing it or seeing it employed that made me gloss over it. Im also generally indifferent to section and platoon sharp shooters, Id prefer to see a CG / NLAW / what ever AT and HE projector in there myself.

Fair, that's something that needs to be addressed: a dismounted ATGM for the sect (probably would just default to NLAW), an upgrade/replacement for the M72, and getting the new M4 CG on line for that multi-mission munition platform.

 

[Kilted]

I would prefer to have both a sharpshooter rifle and a UAS sensor at the sect level, and I could see a UAS sense/strike system at the pl level within the weapons det/sect. I know the proposed LIR rifle section org is working with both (and bringing back the gun group of old), but who knows how that'll play out.

They squeaked it in, not too surprised most people glossed over it.

Honestly? The big thing that will influence a lot about how the section will be in the future is UAS, future sect anti-armour/structure weapons and the C9 replacement. But having a sharpshooter would put us in line with ABCANZ/NATO practice (albeit almost everyone but us as the Americans run 7.62 belt feds instead of 5.56 in addition to a sharpshooter).

Big hope for me is that the new CMAR comes with more mags, with 210rds or 180rds being filled in mags and the remainder in a bandolier as a training baseline. Probably going to take a play out of @KevinB's book and mount my own ATACR on it since I find the advertised optic's reticle too busy for me.

I mean nothing stops use from. Issuesing more mags with the C7 at the present.

 

[MJP]

I think its probably just the lack of ever employing it or seeing it employed that made me gloss over it. Im also generally indifferent to section and platoon sharp shooters, Id prefer to see a CG / NLAW / what ever AT and HE projector in there myself.

We very poorly employed them in Afghanistan. My personal opinion is they are just a tool in the toolbox and I rather we focus on AT at the Sect and Pl level rather than trying to make sniper lite folks