Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[IRepoCans]

Trap/Skeet shooting come close to those numbers for target speed. We'd be wise to spend some time training folks to do that as a tool in the toolbox. Defeating a air threat needs layers and the shotgun falls under "oh fuck that's close" in the final layer. Immediately dismissing it means you're just placing all your trust in someone else to defeat the threat for you and sometimes simpler is better.

Sure it has a use if you have no other options, but from the Ukrainians/legionnaires we've worked with: fieldcraft seems to be a far more effective active and passive response to anything UAS. Not so much as dismissing it, but loathing the fixation on the shotgun at the expense of fieldcraft in CASFC.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Ah yes, the shotgun is going to stop the 80-120kph FPV bomber drone which are being used for attacks in Ukraine.

Yeah. Apparently more effective than trying to blast them with an AR15, which is why they're being used in Ukraine I guess. Obviously they're not going to work every time and are a last ditch close-range effort. Even 1 pellet from a shotgun round can disable a drone.

The only good thing coming out of the AA CAUS shotgun fad is that it's removed all the bullshit waivers and barriers to using shotguns for ballistic breaches on ex and course (the thing I need a shotgun for most of the time). So the mysteriously missing PO 109 Perform a Ballistic Breach will return to RQIP like it was in the draft QSTP.

But did they remove the caveat about shooting people in the head from the PAM?

 

[PuckChaser]

Sure it has a use if you have no other options, but from the Ukrainians/legionnaires we've worked with: fieldcraft seems to be a far more effective active and passive response to anything UAS. Not so much as dismissing it, but loathing the fixation on the shotgun at the expense of fieldcraft in CASFC.

Absolutely. There's a giant venn diagram with the center point of "not blown up by FPV today" and that very much includes fieldcraft.

 

[McG]

Does the NATO ammo standardization not include details on peak pressure, all-burnt point, and combustion temperature? Will we have a rifle that cannot accept NATO 5.56 because it needs bespoke Canadian 5.56?

 

[PuckChaser]

Does the NATO ammo standardization not include details on peak pressure, all-burnt point, and combustion temperature? Will we have a rifle that cannot accept NATO 5.56 because it needs bespoke Canadian 5.56?

No one else follows STANAGs, why should we?

 

[GK .Dundas]

No one else follows STANAGs, why should we?

Why does this sound so familiar...hmm Ross,...Rose or some name like that

 

[KevinB]

Trap/Skeet shooting come close to those numbers for target speed.

No not at all -- plus the clay launchers put the targets so they are moving away from you in a fairly predicable pattern. To make it move in a realistic manner you would have a launcher inside 25m that launches it right at you - from any direction and altitude. I'm a pretty decent shooter and can 24-25/25 with my wife's Benelli M2 regularly - but that has a 22" barrel, I've tried it with a Cylinder Bore 14" and I'm sub 50%.
You aren't likely carrying a 28" Goose Gun for this task.

We'd be wise to spend some time training folks to do that as a tool in the toolbox. Defeating an air threat needs layers and the shotgun falls under "oh fuck that's close" in the final layer. Immediately dismissing it means you're just placing all your trust in someone else to defeat the threat for you and sometimes simpler is better.

Everyone I have spoke to who has been on the ground in Ukraine laughs at the shotgun idea.
There are more effective portable C-UAS methods than a shotgun. Frankly I think you have more luck with a large handheld fishing net than a shotgun against an attack drone, which I still hold is a click bait tool and nothing of any practical military application.
Hitting one dude (or vehicle) with a sub 10% success rate to land a 40mm type payload isn't going to break anything - yeah it sucks if you are the unlucky guy who gets smashed with it -- but RAM (Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars) are a way bigger threat to dismounted soldiers, than a FPV SUAS.

Militarily shotguns are useful for ballistic breaching - and that is about it, so a small 8-10" barrel with a 3+1 capacity.
LE I can accept LL or Slug for Anti-Vehicle in addition to breaching, albeit for both LL and AV work there are much better tools - so the very short stand alone breacher is the way to go for LE as well IMHO.

 

[KevinB]

Does the NATO ammo standardization not include details on peak pressure, all-burnt point, and combustion temperature? Will we have a rifle that cannot accept NATO 5.56 because it needs bespoke Canadian 5.56?

As of last week all 5EYE SOF are at least talking about a common load spec. Big Army down here is talking to SOF and working the ammo issues jointly, so I expect that at least Canada, the UK, Australia, and American forces will have a mutually compatible loading (even if the loadings of some are not approved from non SOF use by other counties).


But I mean the Brit's fielded two different 5.56mm loads as the SA-80 couldn't handle standard NATO SS109 loads, why be different than them

 

[McG]

No one else follows STANAGs, why should we?

There were a few examples of platoons & sections receiving allied ammo in Kandahar. If nobody follows STANAGs or if we need an ammo performance that is not achieved by NATO standard, then sharing is no longer an option. We claimed to have learned this was important when NATO guns started exploding when used in Ukraine with another NATO nation’s standardization compliant ammo.

… and if our conventional forces need to share, they will most likely need to share with allied conventional forces.

 

[NavyShooter]

I'll observe that there is "NATO STANDARD" and "NATO INTERCHANGEABLE"

The Circle with a + inside is NATO Standard - meaning it will fit and function in your rifle safely.

The Maltese Cross is NATO Interchangeable - meaning that it will fit and function in your rifle, and will shoot to within 3 MOA of your expected point of aim out to 300 meters.

(As I recall.)

The SA-80 ammo that was 'tuned' to suit those rifles in particular had to remove not just the Maltese cross, but also the Circle/+

In 1997 I think it was, the USARNG team in Bisley had an ammo mixup, and they had to borrow Brit ammo. Their rifles were jamming within 12-15 rounds fired, and they were having to clean rifles between matches to get them to function.

The HK Fixed L85A..etc series rifles worked perfectly fine with NATO Interchangeable ammunition. That problem is now thankfully well in the past.

 

[KevinB]

I'll observe that there is "NATO STANDARD" and "NATO INTERCHANGEABLE"

The Circle with a + inside is NATO Standard - meaning it will fit and function in your rifle safely.

The Maltese Cross is NATO Interchangeable - meaning that it will fit and function in your rifle, and will shoot to within 3 MOA of your expected point of aim out to 300 meters.

(As I recall.)

The SA-80 ammo that was 'tuned' to suit those rifles in particular had to remove not just the Maltese cross, but also the Circle/+

In 1997 I think it was, the USARNG team in Bisley had an ammo mixup, and they had to borrow Brit ammo. Their rifles were jamming within 12-15 rounds fired, and they were having to clean rifles between matches to get them to function.

The HK Fixed L85A..etc series rifles worked perfectly fine with NATO Interchangeable ammunition. That problem is now thankfully well in the past.

The Brits still have two lots of 5.56mm as of last year -- 1) ammo for the KAC KS-1 guns, and the C7/C8's 2) ammo for the SA80A2.

The SA80A2 ammo is lower pressure - not cycling the AR style weapons well, although it generally works fine in suppressed AR's but still reduced velocities.

You can run a SA80A2 on standard C77/M855 ammo - but it flogs itself to death.

 

[KevinB]

@NavyShooter 's post twigged another point that I had meant to mention earlier.

Unlike bolt action rifles that just rely on a chamber pressure for safe operation, gas guns (DI and Piston) rely on chamber and port pressures for proper function.

Even with current service ammunition ammo manufacturers have played with that over the past 20 years -- pushing performance of the ammunition/projectile without a lot of thought to the ammunitions effect on the weapon in terms of reliability, longevity, and sometimes safety.

M118LR (175gr OTM) 7.62x51mm sniper ammo is one I am very familiar with, as the book standard for M118LR Muzzle Velocity in the 2004 M110 Acceptance with Big Army was 2485fps from the 20" barrel. In late 2009, when I was at KAC there was a lot acceptance test of the M110K1 16" Carbine where M118LR was doing 2650fps from a 16" barrel -- somewhere in the years in-between Lake City had started loading M118LR hotter to get longer ranges (or at least perceived longer range performance). That ammunition had a chamber and port pressure specification -- but no one seemed to care.
DI guns are fairly "inefficient" when it comes to port pressure function, compared to piston guns - as the piston gun gets energy from the expanded gas onto the Op Rod at the gas block -- so changes to the port pressure can result in alarming carrier velocity changes in piston guns where the DI gun speeds or slows down much less dramatically.
This is one reason most modern piston guns have adjustable gas blocks on them (and why the changes to the M249/C9 and M240/C6 gas systems into mono block systems that aren't easily adjusted - or adjustable at all is a major issue - especially when adding suppressors*)
*Modern Flow cans don't see a significant back pressure increase and thus don't raise the carrier velocity significantly if at all.

Then bullet design -- most know I absolutely detest the M855A1 projectile - as it has an exposed hardened steel penetrator. Repeated impact with the chamber upon chambering causes damage to the neck of the chamber and with increased pressure results in unsafe firing conditions on higher round count guns. Now part of this is due to the way the M16 FOW feeds - as the cartridge has a very high AOA when being chambered - and the neck of the chamber is used to direct the projectile -- "straight feed" (well much less pronounced AOA chambering) do not have the same sort of issues with that (look I finally found something good so say about the SCAR family design), so those magazine fed and belt fed guns like that are much less susceptible to chamber wear issues from chambering an exposed steel penetrator.

Then we get into neck tension issues -- unless there is enough neck tension from the casing exerted on the projectile you can get bullet setback into the casing upon chambering - which can result in dangerously high pressure levels - which from my understanding was one of the causes of the kabooms on some weapons in Ukraine with a certain manufacturer of ammunition that was labeled as NATO Interchangeable - which it was not, as was only suitable for use in some NATO weapons (take a C7/M16 FOW and chambering ammunition solely designed for a SCAR or even some commercial .223 bolt gun ammo that doesn't have sufficient neck tension and you get bullet setback - which depending on powder can result in a bad day.

MTF.

 

[KevinB]

Now one of the bonuses with the steel casing and HiP propellants.
The steel casing gives vastly greater neck tension capabilities than brass casings do, and the power for the HiP is almost a compressed solid that fills the casing. Thus bullet setback is virtually impossible with HiP ammunition.
So one significant safety concern is alleviated from the adoption of HiP ammunitions.

Bullet setback pressure spikes have caused near doubling of the chamber pressures with some cartridges, so it is already potentially catastrophic in a standard pressure system - let alone a HiP running 50% or even 100% more pressure than standard.

But obstruction of the bore is generally the most common root issue in military weapon catastrophic failures, and HiP will only make that a lot more ‘lively’.