Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[KevinB]

Usta was, during the summer monthe (usually leave time) platoons were encouraged to learn theory of marksmanship (Dry firing, actually ascertaining master eye, etc.) then grab weapons and adjourne to the nearest Big rifle range, Best shots coached, Bisley level oversaw and ammo came by the truck load.

Yes back when comms, first aid and various other aspect of soldiering where not thought about much.

Learned more in a week about MOA, windage, weather etc than a full year of basic trg! Also learned how firing over a bayonet made a difference.

In basic one should have already learned about bayonet POI shift from zero.

Also tried Quick kill techniques with 7.62, big difference fm BB guns.

Please spare me the man gun comments.


Generally to reliably incapacitate a human target with rifle/carbine one needs to get shots into the upper thoracic cavity, spine, or cranial vault

For the Thoracic Cavity basically a triangle from the tracea to the bottom of the lungs.

Basically a 12” equilateral triangle (to make it easier to visualize)


For the head basically a 6” T shaped area across the eye sockets and downwards


Obviously targets in armor try to cover up most of those areas. So one has even less area to engage.

Most militaries outside of SOF do a shit job of teaching their personnel where to most effectively target - not just for bullet placement, but also just putting the bullet where one is aiming.

I’ve yet to see a Colt Canada rifle or carbine that isn’t capable of at least 1.5MOA accuracy (unless Trooper Blogins has managed to screw it up).

 

[KevinB]

A quick dirty idea of what I think most Military Targets should be, albeit I think they should be 3D - and I am not going to manufacture a side scoring area at this point for this.

Black would be a 2pt scoring area - yellow a 1 pt.

 

[KevinB]

I’d have a slightly different pistol target with a decreased scoring area to account for the differences in penetration and wound cavity of pistol versus rifle bullets.

Having shot pretty much all of the US Fed quals, I’m not terribly enamored with any of their targets, most are fair at best, with either poor placement of scoring areas, or larger scoring areas than should be emphasized.


The standard DoD scoring target isn’t terrible, but has a pretty generous 5 ring

The Dept of Treasury target wouldn’t be terrible, except it doesn’t credit the head well enough, and some of the lower scoring areas should be vastly decreased.

 

[Castus]

No idea what unit you are with, but I was in 101 for six years. Myself, and my cubical partners made it a point to go to Connaught at least once every month or two. You could book PWT 1 Rifle and Pistol online. We did the boring stuff (CBRN, etc) once a year. When the range staff got to recognize us we were able to shoot other applications if they weren't busy all day.

Might have changed, but if you didn't shoot in Ottawa you didn't want to.

My unit mandated SAT training, as I was instructed. Further, things have changed (ostensibly since Covid). Getting slotted in at Connaught is difficult, and unless you don't have a day job and can hover with a finger over the 'book' button on their antiquated America On-Line esque 1990s website, you are unlikely to get one. I am moving into a new position and will be trying to organise more formal and frequent training.

A better idea might be to have Army concentrations for all Army pers within the NCR to do regular, at least annual training. I suspect that Army HQ has enough supernumeraries to make it happen, if there was will. It's all about what the institution values, and what it does to promote that. If the Army valued a fighting force for all of its soldiers, no matter where, it would organise this at a very senior level.

 

[KevinB]

In the late mid 80’s to the mid 90’s it was fairly easy to get range time at Connaught, both week and weekends. It was usually a PITA to draw weapons on the weekend, outside of semi organized unit shooting teams, but ammo wasn’t a problem and for a long time if you where a DCRA member you could get C77 ball no issues to shoot out of your own AR-15 to do weekend practices as long as you where a qualified RSO (I’ll note that I did get shut down one weekend as apparently there is some rule that the RSO can’t be shooting even if they are the only one on the range.).

IIRC one weekend a month there where ORA/DCRA Service Rifle matches and practices. Pistol as well for that matter.

 

[Fabius]

Outside of the typical Fig 11 and Fig 12 Targets, the CAFOSP references the B27 Target as equivalent. The Urban Operator Course uses the B27 target and its associated scoring rings for measurement of accuracy in relation to time. The standards are deliberately generous though, with both carbine and pistol at 7m the scoring zones are the 8 and 9 ring.

 

[KevinB]

B27 is an absolutely awful target - the scoring rings at the bottom of what your target area should actually be.

I know folks preach Center of Mass or Center of Visible Mass, but it really should be center of the visible effective area.

 

[Fabius]

I would have to go through the versions of CAFOSP again in detail to be 100% but I don’t believe there is any regard for anatomical POA/POI.
The scoring rings for the B27 or the Fig 11 rectangle is merely for grouping size not lethality on a human target.

I agree with your assessment of the B27 and like the tgts you put above as being more anatomically correct for lethal impacts but I am not sure if that’s even on the radar.

 

[brihard]

View attachment 86193

Outside of the typical Fig 11 and Fig 12 Targets, the CAFOSP references the B27 Target as equivalent. The Urban Operator Course uses the B27 target and its associated scoring rings for measurement of accuracy in relation to time. The standards are deliberately generous though, with both carbine and pistol at 7m the scoring zones are the 8 and 9 ring.

That’s a questionable methodology if you’re training shooting to win the fight. It should be fast enough / good enough shooting of multiple shots within the thoracic cavity or the center of the head. Scoring rings can teach people to try to shoot too smalll, when that’s out of sync with what physiologically stops a human body from being able to act in a way that is a threat to you. Operational shooting for close in stuff should be aiming to maximize catastrophic loss of blood pressure, with CNS or psychological stops being a convenient coincidental byproduct.

 

[KevinB]

There needs to be a blend of speed and accuracy.


Larry Vickers likes to say Speed is Fine, but Accuracy is Final.
His old Unit has a pistol drill called the Humbler that is shot at 25yds on a Bullseye B8 target
Stage 1- 10 rds slow fire in 10 minutes
Stage 2- 5 rds in 20 seconds from the draw (x2)
Stage 3- 5 rds in 10 seconds from the draw (x2)
Stage 4- 5 rds strong hand only in 5 minutes
Stage 5- 5 rds in 20 seconds strong hand from the draw
Stage 6- 5 rds in 10 seconds strong hand from the draw
Stage 7- 5 rds weak hand only in 5 minutes
Stage 8- 5 rds kneeling in 5 minutes
Stage 9- 5 rds in 20 seconds standing to kneel with the draw
Stage 10-5 rds prone in 5 minutes
Stage 11-5 rds in 20 seconds standing to prone with the draw
It is a 70 shot drill for a 700 aggregate score.

My personal best of the Humbler was a 527 back when I was shooting close to 100k of pistol a year...

My belief is that scoring rings either need to be placed in atomically correct locations - or entirely not used on silhouette targets at all - and used for Dot drills or Bullseye targets only.

I also don't believe the scoring area markings should be visible for qualification targets (which I think should ideally be 3D photorealistic, and shot from a variety of views), and have clothing, and equipment placed on them for added realism -- but then that also drives cost.

The other aspect is that in an actual gunfight you will never shoot as well as you do on a flat range - you most likely will shoot faster than you should - and not be nearly as accurate. For LE and Mil shooters working around non combatants there needs to be stringent control of rounds fired, with an very eloquent quote (paraphrased for the current time) "the Crown owns all the rounds in your weapon until you fire it, then you own it".


Lastly to add onto what @brihard mentioned above - you need to train as you fight - so the Fig11, and B27 type targets end up subconsciously training the shooter to aim for the center of mass -- not the center of effective mass.

Going back to the Dept of Treasury target I post above -- what happens when that agent runs into a person wearing LIV Hard Armor over a LIII Soft Vest? Odds are unless they have trained for Non Standard Responses - they will sink most of their mag (or most) into the armor. Which with a Carbine, armor can be overcome by multiple shots into a small area - or of course elevating ones aim to the head.
It is not far fetched - and I know a friend who put 11 rounds into a target in Afghanistan with his C8CQB, at the time they where using C77 ball, and the bullets effectively ice picked the combatant - he then transitioned to his pistol and shot the target in the head - when asked why he didn't just raise the aim of his carbine - he had not thought about it - his only thought was that the carbine didn't seem to be working...
-- this is a shooter who had never shot a 1911 before and went an embarrassed me with my own gun on a few drills, had been to Mid-South and was "they guy" to conduct pistol demos for VIP's at his unit.

Training Scars can be very real - and they can and do end up killing folks.

 

[Fabius]

There needs to be a blend of speed and accuracy.

Very much in agreement with this. This needs to be trained both individually and together and on targets different than the 3D photo realistic or reactive targets as I think we need to be able to score the results objectively against a time and accuracy standard.

Once the marksmanship is at a certain point the 2D / 3D photo realistic and reactive targets need to introduced to train scenarios and TTPs ( I am grouping stuff like non standard responses here)

It’s then a balance between marksmanship to maintain skill and applying the skill to the scenarios.

Although I think that the CA should in a perfect world do more to improve pure marksmanship and it’s application in scenarios I am not certain that the scenario TTP applications belong in the PWTs ( not that anyone is necessarily arguing for that, I am just thinking out loud here) .

If we need to / want to stick with the Fig 11/12 for qualification, it would not be difficult to modify the scoring box to better represent the actual anatomical kill box found on better targets.

 

[Fabius]

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

This made me curious so I looked at it a bit in the context of the CA. for someone to fire the entire CAFOSP C7 Rifle and Carbine range practices and PWTs you would need 1,960 rounds of 5.56.
For a Division of approx 13,000 personnel which is close to what our Division's have in terms of uniformed personnel you would need 25.5 Million rounds. Actual allocations are around 10% of that or about 192 rounds per person in a Division.

Those rounds need to get people through their zeroing their rifle, PWT 1-3, Pairs, Section, Pl and then Coy for the F Echelon forces. Up to pairs at minimum ideally for everyone.

PWT1, 2 and 3 only with no practice just zeroing is 170 rounds.

 

[KevinB]

This made me curious so I looked at it a bit in the context of the CA. for someone to fire the entire CAFOSP C7 Rifle and Carbine range practices and PWTs you would need 1,960 rounds of 5.56.
For a Division of approx 13,000 personnel which is close to what our Division's have in terms of uniformed personnel you would need 25.5 Million rounds. Actual allocations are around 10% of that or about 192 rounds per person in a Division.

Those rounds need to get people through their zeroing their rifle, PWT 1-3, Pairs, Section, Pl and then Coy for the F Echelon forces. Up to pairs at minimum ideally for everyone.

PWT1, 2 and 3 only with no practice just zeroing is 170 rounds.

I'm somewhat unsurprised, there is a large disconnect with the book requirements, and ground reality in that aspect in pretty much all the Western Militaries Conventional Forces. Admittedly when you look at the US Army M4A1 CoF, some of the practices are either obsolete or redundant - but there are Commanders who are still signing off that their units have fired all of these - with the glaringly evident aspect that they haven't even drawn the needed ammo (and often not booked all the ranges) to do so.

 

[Fabius]

Can’t say I was surprised either but it is good to have defined numbers. I would suggest that the key takeaway from the numbers is that unless the ammo allocations are at minimum increased to 50%of the CAFOSP individual requirements there is very limited value to be gained from modifications to the CAFOSP itself.

 

[dapaterson]

Can’t say I was surprised either but it is good to have defined numbers. I would suggest that the key takeaway from the numbers is that unless the ammo allocations are at minimum increased to 50%of the CAFOSP individual requirements there is very limited value to be gained from modifications to the CAFOSP itself.

Simulation can be used to offset some of that ammunition demand.

 

[KevinB]

Simulation can be used to offset some of that ammunition demand.