Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[MilEME09]

Thanks dude. What physical lengths are those barrels? The FS still looks pretty long.

I have a very similar stock on my rifle (Magpul STR) and it's great for comfort. Not that much heavier than the CTR stock either.

What's the muzzle contraption?

14" for the FS vs 11.5" CS, the muzzle is a suppressor, one of the best on the market.

 

[KevinB]

sure, The biggest difference is barrel length, the FS is longer, meant for the infantry only, and can mount the C27 grenade launcher. Once the new ammo arrives it will allow a infantry soldier to engage targets effectively at 500m (there will be a PWT level 5 for 500m). Here is a side by side picture of CWO (Ret'd) John Yoshida showing them off the other night at 33 Svc Bn. As you can see the stock is a slightly different model as well to allow for a storage compartment for optic batteries. I am loving that we finally went with magpul for accessories, and PMags are coming too.


View attachment 100730

Damn he was a Sgt the last time I saw him.

 

[KevinB]

14" for the FS vs 11.5" CS, the muzzle is a suppressor, one of the best on the market.

The Strategic Science Suppressors are pretty neat. They setup business in Canada as well for this program, with a very solid Small Arms User SME involved (not sure of Frank's Paquette’s title there), Frank had tried to pull the rest of the CAF into the 21st Century for weapons training, he was showing me their different wares at ISOF a few years ago.
Strategic Sciences suppressor

The barrel looks a lot longer on the CS than 11.5”, as the Suppressor on that gun with the 11.5” barrel is almost to the foreend rail.
They honestly look like the 14.5” and 16.1” versions of the gun I have seen.

 

[PrairieFella]

Not loving that only the infantry are getting GLs though. There are many other people in the combat arms who could use them. Hopefully theres a follow on order for stand-alone launchers.

 

[MilEME09]

Not loving that only the infantry are getting GLs though. There are many other people in the combat arms who could use them. Hopefully theres a follow on order for stand-alone launchers.

We shall see, until the C26 and 27 are fielded units are to keep a limited number of C7s for their M203s

 

[markppcli]

Not loving that only the infantry are getting GLs though. There are many other people in the combat arms who could use them. Hopefully theres a follow on order for stand-alone launchers.

To be honest they likely wouldnt train with them anyways. Small arms are at best an afterthought to the rest of the CAF. I say that as a guy whose spent four years in an arty unit that has 203s.

 

[Eaglelord17]

To be honest they likely wouldnt train with them anyways. Small arms are at best an afterthought to the rest of the CAF. I say that as a guy whose spent four years in an arty unit that has 203s.

Just getting people to train on the basics is difficult.

The amount of arguments I got into over the value of section attacks and recce for non-combat arms was crazy.

We weren’t a very serious army, hopefully that is changing.

 

[Fabius]

Once the new ammo arrives it will allow a infantry soldier to engage targets effectively at 500m (there will be a PWT level 5 for 500m)

I had not heard that yet. I will be interested to see that PWT and the work up to 500m.

Although the terminal ballistics may enable kinetic effect and the external ballistics may reduce trajectory holds and windage deviations, it will still require the shooters to be able to hold on target.

The increased magnification will be a help to that although it can make an inexperienced shooter worse as it tends to magnify the amount of wobble zone leading to snatching the trigger.

Either way that capability will take more time and ammunition to maintain, it will be interesting to see how the army allocates and manages that.

 

[MilEME09]

I had not heard that yet. I will be interested to see that PWT and the work up to 500m.

Although the terminal ballistics may enable kinetic effect and the external ballistics may reduce trajectory holds and windage deviations, it will still require the shooters to be able to hold on target.

The increased magnification will be a help to that although it can make an inexperienced shooter worse as it tends to magnify the amount of wobble zone leading to snatching the trigger.

Either way that capability will take more time and ammunition to maintain, it will be interesting to see how the army allocates and manages that.

With the target accuracy is a maximum grouping size of 45cm at 500m (actual grouping size in testing is available in documents) it will take some work up for untrained shooters

 

[Ludoc]

I had not heard that yet. I will be interested to see that PWT and the work up to 500m.

Work up? That's not how PWTs work. You go there, fire the test on rifle you have never seen before, fail the test, and get told better luck year after receiving zero coaching on how to improve.

 

[Castus]

Just getting people to train on the basics is difficult.

The amount of arguments I got into over the value of section attacks and recce for non-combat arms was crazy.

We weren’t a very serious army, hopefully that is changing.

Ah yes, the old 'well if I have to do a section attack we're in big trouble / it's all over'. What about if your supposedly secure rear area is penetrated? What if your convoy is ambushed?

Absolute nonsense.

 

[Fabius]

With the target accuracy is a maximum grouping size of 45cm at 500m (actual grouping size in testing is available in documents) it will take some work up for untrained shooters

Are we talking the mechanical accuracy of the rifle / ammunition combination at 500m equalling 45cm or the PWT grouping standard expected is 45cm at 500m?

If it’s the PWT that’s a significant departure from the last several PWT variations where past 200m it was only points for hits anywhere on tgt.

 

[MilEME09]

Are we talking the mechanical accuracy of the rifle / ammunition combination at 500m equalling 45cm or the PWT grouping standard expected is 45cm at 500m?

If it’s the PWT that’s a significant departure from the last several PWT variations where past 200m it was only points for hits anywhere on tgt.

There is no standard yet for PWT5, however the rifle is capable of extremely tight groupings at 500m with a good shooter

 

[PrairieFella]

To be honest they likely wouldnt train with them anyways. Small arms are at best an afterthought to the rest of the CAF. I say that as a guy whose spent four years in an arty unit that has 203s.

I hear but that doesnt mean the capability should be taken away. Armoured units use their M203s all the time for echelon members and now for assault troopers as examples.

 

[childs56]

Work up? That's not how PWTs work. You go there, fire the test on rifle you have never seen before, fail the test, and get told better luck year after receiving zero coaching on how to improve.

everyone passes with the .223 ball point pen...

 

[markppcli]

I hear but that doesnt mean the capability should be taken away. Armoured units use their M203s all the time for echelon members and now for assault troopers as examples.

If you're not training - ie shooting them - its not a capability. Its a weight on your rifle that you can't effectively employ. Ill check with the two armoured captains i work with but I suspect they didnt go to the range for 203 much either.

 

[KevinB]

Mounting a GL on the rifle/carbine is useless.

1) You get a 5lb weight added all the time, for a small amount of actual usage.
2) The GL (and it doesn’t matter what type) makes holding the weapon for any decent shooting very awkward (even worse with the M203A1 Colt Canada mount).
3) In the event of a casualty, you need to recover both rifle/carbine and GL to get the GL.

GL’s should be setup in a stand alone configuration. This allows it to be used when needed and stowed when not.

Ammunition for the GL should not be integrally affixed to the vest, etc of the Grenadier. It should be on a bandolier/belt solely for 40mm storage. That way it can be removed and recovered quickly from a combat casualty.




If the ammo is anything like the HiCar ammo down here, it is capable of excellent accuracy, with extremely low standard deviation in muzzle velocity. Minute of angle results out to 500m should be possible with a capable shooter. Precision effects out to 800m should be very possible with good shooters (albeit not necessarily combat conditions).

Just with an EOTech RDS I was able to consistently hit LaRue steel poppers out to 800m with an 11.5” Sons of Liberty MCAR system.

 

[Castus]

everyone passes with the .223 ball point pen...

This is certainly not the way that Connaught Ranges deals with it in Ottawa. They are ruthless (rightly so) and will not pass members who do not make the standard. It's impressive and I hope after enough staff officers and NCOs fail their foundational rifle shoot (PWT 1) that this is taken far more seriously.

 

[KevinB]

This is certainly not the way that Connaught Ranges deals with it in Ottawa. They are ruthless (rightly so) and will not pass members who do not make the standard. It's impressive and I hope after enough staff officers and NCOs fail their foundational rifle shoot (PWT 1) that this is taken far more seriously.

I’ve seen rigorous standards applied in some unexpected units, and pathetic results from RegF Infantry units.

Electronic scoring on instrumented ranges takes a lot of the fudge factor out of it, especially when a separate entity if controlling them and the results.

Some units actually published PWT Scores to try to instill competitive spirits, and also shame those who didn’t make an effort.