Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[IRepoCans]

So it does. Interesting that ORBAT is not what I have seen on the ground in any Bn so far but that's likely due to not having weapons other than C7/8. Fitted for but not with.

I was not tracking the DLR minor cap program, it seems that it has made it through to having funding allocated with the plan being to exercise a C20 option with Colt Canada worth IVO $4.0M.

Are you tracking which optic they are planning? It does not appear to be the same as the sniper C20 but rather the Elcan Spectre TR.

View attachment 86023

Yeah, it's hard to employ the concept without the platform.

The optic package, much like that of the C8A4 is still up in the wind; but also isn't looking good for the budget allocated.

 

[markppcli]

In the newest version (https://acims.mil.ca/sp/cadl/DoctrineLibrary/B-GL-309-003 FP-001_B.pdf#search=section and platoon) [DWAN Link only], para 0212-0213.

Huh bizarre given we have no doctrine, nor equipment to fulfill that.

 

[IRepoCans]

Huh bizarre given we have no doctrine, nor equipment to fulfill that.

I think they're trying to do the whole: build the need first, then buy the kit.

Shame CFOSP is dogshit for building marksmanship, and the kit will take forever to deliver.

 

[Fabius]

I’m going to say that CAFOSP is actually not terrible at building marksmanship in terms of any large institutional program.
Have you tried the new PWTs yet?

Where the institution goes astray is that no one actually follows CAFOSP. It’s rare to actually shoot all the practices leading to a PWT. Rarer yet to have NCOs capable of coaching marksmanship.
Rarer still for a unit to actually have the ammunition and time to do it.

Ranges are usually done as an item to get through quickly in as short a time frame as possible, to move on to something else.

I know various units at various times have done things properly or tried to, usually due to a small number of committed people.

 

[KevinB]

Where the institution goes astray is that no one actually follows CAFOSP. It’s rare to actually shoot all the practices leading to a PWT. Rarer yet to have NCOs capable of coaching marksmanship.

Ah ha, I see you are gloriously following the US Army model.

Rarer still for a unit to actually have the ammunition and time to do it.

Down here there is no shortage of ammunition, just a shortage of training days.

Ranges are usually done as an item to get through quickly in as short a time frame as possible, to move on to something else.

Check

I know various units at various times have done things properly or tried to, usually due to a small number of committed people.

A buddy of mine made a rather career limit move when he pointed out to the FORSCOM Commanding General that based on STRAT A allocations for ammo, every 0-6 was a bold face liar when they certified that their units had conducted all the carbine training, given that it takes a min of 2,705 rounds/Cbt Arms soldier to get through all the Individual training and zeroing tasks on the M4A1, let alone collective training. When units haven’t even drawn that much ammo

 

[IRepoCans]

I’m going to say that CAFOSP is actually not terrible at building marksmanship in terms of any large institutional program.
Have you tried the new PWTs yet?

Where the institution goes astray is that no one actually follows CAFOSP. It’s rare to actually shoot all the practices leading to a PWT. Rarer yet to have NCOs capable of coaching marksmanship.
Rarer still for a unit to actually have the ammunition and time to do it.

Ranges are usually done as an item to get through quickly in as short a time frame as possible, to move on to something else.

I know various units at various times have done things properly or tried to, usually due to a small number of committed people.

The new CFOSP isn't accessible on AEL yet, so we can't use it yet (I understand you can request access, but it's not real until it's on AEL in both official languages). Looked at some of the new PWTs, good changes but as you accurately pointed out ammo and range expediency is always a problem.

But still, coaching is going to be an even larger delta when we move over to a LVPO for the C8A4. The number of times I have to explain sight alignment to trained dudes is depressing enough as it is.

 

[Fabius]

Access issues aside it’s real as per the CANLANGEN issued this spring.

As per that msg it superseded the previous version and the new version was the only valid CAFOSP for qualification, however due to deltas between the infrastructure, ammunition and the new CAFOSP, CADTC about two weeks ago issued direction that COs could elect to utilize either the old PWTs or the new PWTs to qualify their personnel.

 

[Castus]

What are the new PWTs? I'm not in the field force right now and the last time I did a PWT 3 (a while ago) it was a traditional run down.

 

[markppcli]

I think they're trying to do the whole: build the need first, then buy the kit.

Shame CFOSP is dogshit for building marksmanship, and the kit will take forever to deliver.

I don’t even know what the need is tbh. I think section or platoon DMs made sense in a COIN environment, probably less so as we are back to concerning ourselves with LSCO. So when they say a need, it more curious how they see the section DM working in any Section level task than I am about what gun they’ll get.

 

[PrairieFella]

I don’t even know what the need is tbh. I think section or platoon DMs made sense in a COIN environment, probably less so as we are back to concerning ourselves with LSCO. So when they say a need, it more curious how they see the section DM working in any Section level task than I am about what gun they’ll get.

In your opinion, would it be better at the platoon or company level as a tool in the toolbox? Like attach them to the weapons dets?

 

[KevinB]

I don’t even know what the need is tbh. I think section or platoon DMs made sense in a COIN environment, probably less so as we are back to concerning ourselves with LSCO. So when they say a need, it more curious how they see the section DM working in any Section level task than I am about what gun they’ll get.

It offers a semi-precision capability at the Squad/Section role. Down here the DMR is an 'as needed' capability - as they can still draw a M4A1 if there isn't the need for the DMR.
The theory is the DMR has a 0-->600-800m range capability - originally down here the DMR was supposed to have a higher magnified optic but Big Army chose the rather awful Sig 1-6x. I've be looking for a 1-8 or 1-10x, or a 2-10 type optic for the DMR as well as clip on night vision to give a larger effective engagement and identification band at night as well.

The eventual plan down here is that the DMR and Grenadiers (and potentially LMG gunners) will get a SubCompact Weapon system - which is supposed to be smaller than the 10.3" barrel Mk18 (it's also designed for vehicle crews and some other arms).

 

[MJP]

I don’t even know what the need is tbh. I think section or platoon DMs made sense in a COIN environment, probably less so as we are back to concerning ourselves with LSCO. So when they say a need, it more curious how they see the section DM working in any Section level task than I am about what gun they’ll get.

It offers a semi-precision capability at the Squad/Section role. Down here the DMR is an 'as needed' capability - as they can still draw a M4A1 if there isn't the need for the DMR.
The theory is the DMR has a 0-->600-800m range capability - originally down here the DMR was supposed to have a higher magnified optic but Big Army chose the rather awful Sig 1-6x. I've be looking for a 1-8 or 1-10x, or a 2-10 type optic for the DMR as well as clip on night vision to give a larger effective engagement and identification band at night as well.

The eventual plan down here is that the DMR and Grenadiers (and potentially LMG gunners) will get a SubCompact Weapon system - which is supposed to be smaller than the 10.3" barrel Mk18 (it's also designed for vehicle crews and some other arms).

Agreed, like most things we need it as a tool in the tool box that we can pull out when needed. We had a few DMs in sections in 2006 and was a nice to call on asset but they did their normal job 99% of the time. Dangerous discussions of always having it remind me of the disingenuous arguments for removing the 60mm mortar saying the C16 would do its role which we all know isn't true. There were other issues of NP budget and whatnot but both have their role and don't necessarily replace each other.

 

[markppcli]

In your opinion, would it be better at the platoon or company level as a tool in the toolbox? Like attach them to the weapons dets?

Yes, but if I’m assigning PYs it’s below ATGMs, MGs, Signals, and UAS in priority of manning.

It offers a semi-precision capability at the Squad/Section role. Down here the DMR is an 'as needed' capability - as they can still draw a M4A1 if there isn't the need for the DMR.
The theory is the DMR has a 0-->600-800m range capability - originally down here the DMR was supposed to have a higher magnified optic but Big Army chose the rather awful Sig 1-6x. I've be looking for a 1-8 or 1-10x, or a 2-10 type optic for the DMR as well as clip on night vision to give a larger effective engagement and identification band at night as well.

The eventual plan down here is that the DMR and Grenadiers (and potentially LMG gunners) will get a SubCompact Weapon system - which is supposed to be smaller than the 10.3" barrel Mk18 (it's also designed for vehicle crews and some other arms).

Yeah I have, thoughts I guess about how viable the arms room concept really is during large scale combat operations. Not against it but I think it needs to be assessed for realism. If we’re talking about having a rifle in the lav for specific use, much like how we employ shot guns, then I can get behind it.

I can see the utility in having that 800 m shot, but I’m not sure what I’d be willing to give up for it.

Agreed, like most things we need it as a tool in the tool box that we can pull out when needed. We had a few DMs in sections in 2006 and was a nice to call on asset but they did their normal job 99% of the time. Dangerous discussions of always having it remind me of the disingenuous arguments for removing the 60mm mortar saying the C16 would do its role which we all know isn't true. There were other issues of NP budget and whatnot but both have their role and don't necessarily replace each other.

Sort of my point, useful in coin some of the time, when precision rifle shots make good sense due to CDE concerns, and your operating out of fobs, cops, and out of relatively secure leaguers.

 

[KevinB]

Yes, but if I’m assigning PYs it’s below ATGMs, MGs, Signals, and UAS in priority of manning.

110%

Yeah I have, thoughts I guess about how viable the arms room concept really is during large scale combat operations. Not against it but I think it needs to be assessed for realism. If we’re talking about having a rifle in the lav for specific use, much like how we employ shot guns, then I can get behind it.

Honestly if it's a 14.5-16" .308, you can pretty much just run it like a C8SFW w/ LPVO

I can see the utility in having that 800 m shot, but I’m not sure what I’d be willing to give up for it.

Which is why I'm a fan of the 14.5-16" barrel, as you really only lose automatic fire (and I question the need for it in shoulder fired weapons anyway) and gain a lb or two. If you are looking at a 20" barrel, then I think it will collect a lot of dust in back of a LAV or CQ...

Sort of my point, useful in coin some of the time, when precision rifle shots make good sense due to CDE concerns, and your operating out of fobs, cops, and out of relatively secure leaguers.

I'm a big fan of the "Battle Rifle" as a DMR/SSR (see my avatar), when USASOC started getting into the whole 6.5 Creedmore there was a desire for a 22" barrel for range requirements (sigh) and I kept questioning that as I knew Jack Leuba at KAC had been getting super sonic results from the 14.5" gun out past 1000m. Plus very few folks liked the 20" barrel of the M110, so adding 2" was not going to fly in the long run. OFC now USASOC ended up getting 2 uppers for the guns, one 14.5" and one 22", and outside of competitions, no one actually uses the 22".

 

[IRepoCans]

I don’t even know what the need is tbh. I think section or platoon DMs made sense in a COIN environment, probably less so as we are back to concerning ourselves with LSCO. So when they say a need, it more curious how they see the section DM working in any Section level task than I am about what gun they’ll get.

One could healthily argue that the current inventory we employ was for the COIN environment and we're now returning to the whole 600m-800m section effective range weapon loadout for LSCO without jumping into a whole new intermediate cartridge (which seems to be the play with the remainder of NATO / close partners).

Wouldn't be surprised to see a 7.62 belt fed return to the section in the form of last century's Mk48 or maybe something new and cool like the LAMG, but I might just be optimistic.

Honestly if it's a 14.5-16" .308, you can pretty much just run it like a C8SFW w/ LPVO

Which is why I'm a fan of the 14.5-16" barrel, as you really only lose automatic fire (and I question the need for it in shoulder fired weapons anyway) and gain a lb or two. If you are looking at a 20" barrel, then I think it will collect a lot of dust in back of a LAV or CQ...

The only way it works is if we got with a carbine length barrel sharpshooter, just recycling the C20 as is would not really meet the reality of the section sharpshooter.

 

[KevinB]

One could healthily argue that the current inventory we employ was for the COIN environment and we're now returning to the whole 600m-800m section effective range weapon loadout for LSCO without jumping into a whole new intermediate cartridge (which seems to be the play with the remainder of NATO / close partners).

I'd argue that the 600m-800m Section range is actually more of a COIN aspect. LSCO's generally don't have significant range requirements from the Infantry, at least against personnel - Armor yes.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a 7.62 belt fed return to the section in the form of last century's Mk48 or maybe something new and cool like the LAMG, but I might just be optimistic.

I loathe the Mk48, mainly as it's fairly uncontrollable, and any non flow can kills them quickly. SOCOM's AMG Program (if it goes anywhere) will be interesting, as despite it's characterization, it really is a LWGPMG requirement, and the KAC LAMG while a solid gun, doesn't meet some of the sustained fire requirements - but it is propably closest to the mark at this point.

The only way it works is if we got with a carbine length barrel sharpshooter, just recycling the C20 as is would not really meet the reality of the section sharpshooter.

TBH I question the need for a 20" barrel 7.62 gun at all, the original 2004 M110 acceptance results where 2485fps from M118LR, the (allegedly same) M118LR was chrono'ing 2560 and higher from the 16" M110K1 in its acceptance trials with a US Army entity in late 2009. So with powder improvements you can get the same performance one wanted from a 20" with the 16", I'd need to dig out my old data from the 14.5" 7.62 gun, but it was pretty close to the original 20" barrel data - and it was a viable 800m shooter. When I shot the USASOC Sniper Comp in 2015 with the 14.5" gun SGM Sean Wiseman who was the unit Sniper CDD SGM at the time commented I was the only one who actually brought a combat gun to the comp (unsure if that was a compliment or not to this day).
I landed consistent hits at 1,400m at a High Angle Shooting course in Utah with the 16" K1, and while I wouldn't want to guarantee that in combat I know a few folks who got kills out to 1600m with the 16" gun.

My whole point to this sidebar is one needs to have a realistic range band requirement laid out for systems:

Individual Rifle/Carbine needs to be able to ID and Engage Point Targets effectively to X M's with blank percentage probability.
Testing the system is easy - as that can be done in a rest and the ID check for the Optic/VAS can be done easily using items in a field and troops with the setup on a berm - using a Platoon and averaging the results.
Then one needs a shooting program to ensure that the shooter can do that.

The Army determined that the M4A1 can obtain first round hits to 830m with over 90% confidence in a machine rest (target defined as a 18" chest plate). Basically that the stock gun is capable of 2.5 MOA.
However when you add the shooter, the hit results where under 50% at 300m (study wasn't specific as to trades, but only 10th Mnt Div was over 75% at 300m)
And shooter in combat was under 50% at 100m (AWG Mentor group data from Iraq/Afghanistan)

So one has a training/software issue not a hardware issue.

 

[IRepoCans]

My whole point to this sidebar is one needs to have a realistic range band requirement laid out for systems:

Individual Rifle/Carbine needs to be able to ID and Engage Point Targets effectively to X M's with blank percentage probability.
Testing the system is easy - as that can be done in a rest and the ID check for the Optic/VAS can be done easily using items in a field and troops with the setup on a berm - using a Platoon and averaging the results.
Then one needs a shooting program to ensure that the shooter can do that.

The Army determined that the M4A1 can obtain first round hits to 830m with over 90% confidence in a machine rest (target defined as a 18" chest plate). Basically that the stock gun is capable of 2.5 MOA.
However when you add the shooter, the hit results where under 50% at 300m (study wasn't specific as to trades, but only 10th Mnt Div was over 75% at 300m)
And shooter in combat was under 50% at 100m (AWG Mentor group data from Iraq/Afghanistan)

So one has a training/software issue not a hardware issue.

Oh god yes, one of my pet peeves with the current C7/C8 pub and CFOSP is we teach that it's effective against point targets out to 400m but we have little to no range practices made to achieve that aim.

 

[Fabius]

However when you add the shooter, the hit results where under 50% at 300m (study wasn't specific as to trades, but only 10th Mnt Div was over 75% at 300m)
And shooter in combat was under 50% at 100m (AWG Mentor group data from Iraq/Afghanistan)

Oh god yes, one of my pet peeves with the current C7/C8 pub and CFOSP is we teach that it's effective against point targets out to 400m but we have little to no range practices made to achieve that aim.

I am reasonably confident stating that the CA has no idea what it’s soldiers hit ratio is at any distance from any position.
I am not tracking that data being recorded anywhere in any form institutionally.

Given that lack of data how do you design anything. Anyone changing CAFOSP is likely having to go with gut feelings vs hard metrics and data.

 

[KevinB]

I am reasonably confident stating that the CA has no idea what it’s soldiers hit ratio is at any distance from any position.
I am not tracking that data being recorded anywhere in any form institutionally.

Given that lack of data how do you design anything. Anyone changing CAFOSP is likely having to go with gut feelings vs hard metrics and data.

Which is worrisome. As the gallery electronic ranges in Edmonton could do that in the early 2000’s.

Now 10th Mnt was an aberration for several years as successive CG’s supported a pretty solid marksmanship program, which was basically a shorter 2 week version of the Ranger Marksmanship Instruction Program.
(Note not necessarily Instructor - as various ranks took the course)
I went and audited it at one point and made a bunch of recommendations to the CQB program - most of which where related to the fact the M16A2 and ACOG most had at that point where not ideal for shooting in full battle rattle in various positions - and how to use the VIS laser on the PEQ-15 and body index the rifle to get fast hits. But the program did a good job and did KD and UKD shooting on week 1 out to 600m. For that oddly wasn’t shot in full armor - as I was the only one wearing armor and helmet for that.

OFC I looked like a god in full MultiCam and suppressed weapons. As the cadre and students were still in the gravel pit camo ACU - I probably could have gotten a few more ex-wives out of that trip, especially when the students where starting to setup their hooches, and I promptly threw my gear in my truck and announced I was off to the hot tub at my hotel

I’ll note the top shooter on that course a very attractive blonde helicopter mechanic (she won as my scores didn’t count) - who hit me up on Linked In right after the course. Fortunately I’m still happily married to the same wife I had before the course.

Sadly 10th Mnt killed the course in 2018, and small world that it is, KAC hired the NCOIC from when I was there, Ash Hess.

 

[Fabius]

What are the new PWTs? I'm not in the field force right now and the last time I did a PWT 3 (a while ago) it was a traditional run down.

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

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.

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.

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