Colt Canada's Next Generation Bullpup Prototype

redshooter said:
You guys love to bring up the current rifle...I'll play that game...go read the history on the M-16. Before you go crowing about Mr. Stoner being part of a private endeavor, consider where the advances in material science came from to allow him to build such an innovative weapon.

Those Eggheads I worked for in the late 90's developed the tech to some degree at McMaster University on the governments dime (that they then sold as a private corporation). If you served in the Canadian Forces in the last 20 years you've likely benefited from their gear.

I love how the thought process plays out sometimes...we need someone who knows how it's applied to be part of the development...so let's leave it to be done by a corporation...so unless your suggesting some corporation like Aegis be contracted to work on the concept who better than to establish the requirements than those who are going to use it.
Click to expand...


Hmm

Boots - suck
Uniform - Sucks
Body Army - Sucks
LBE - Sucks

I'm wondering what the superior gear is????
 
I must be speaking greek...I have yet to suggest any item is good or bad. I am suggesting the process is correct. I'm also suggesting that the problem lies with something other than the Scientists and Engineers.

What is it you do? Ohh, that's right the company you work for builds something designed by some other guy and had pretty much all of the bugs worked out how long ago, about 20 years? Regardless of the quality...

So industry guru, what do you suggest?
 
Last edited:
redshooter said:
I must be speaking greek...I have yet to suggest any item is good or bad. I am suggesting the process is correct. I'm also suggesting that the problem lies with something other than the Scientists and Engineers.

What is it you do? Ohh, that's right the company you work for builds something designed by some other guy and had pretty much all of the bugs worked out how long ago? Regardless of the quality...

So industry guru, what so you suggest?
Click to expand...

Considering Kevin used to be infantry in the CF and worked on projects in regards to weapon systems while he was in...
 
redshooter said:
I must be speaking greek...I have yet to suggest any item is good or bad. I am suggesting the process is correct. I'm also suggesting that the problem lies with something other than the Scientists and Engineers.

What is it you do? Ohh, that's right the company you work for builds something designed by some other guy and had pretty much all of the bugs worked out how long ago, about 20 years? Regardless of the quality...

So industry guru, what so you suggest?
Click to expand...

You don't know who Kevin Boland is, right?

If the process was correct and the scientists and engineers weren't to blame, the troops wouldn't be wearing and running craptastic gear that even Syrian rebels wouldn't want anything to do with.
 
Dietz said:
You don't know who Kevin Boland is, right?

If the process was correct and the scientists and engineers weren't to blame, the troops wouldn't be wearing and running craptastic gear that even Syrian rebels wouldn't want anything to do with.
Click to expand...

I can read...As for it's the engineers fault...garbage in garbage out. Like any other thing it's all down to how it's managed.
 
Ok, so what have we learned...CF gear sucks because KevinB says so...It's all the fault of the Eggheads...don't worry about the future the industry will take care of it...

Kevin I'm not questioning your knowledge or credentials...but I know you can expand on it sucks and since you have been part of the process perhaps you could narrow down what part of the current way it's done holds it back in your opinon?
 
Last edited:
Just curious why we try to do research and development of this type, with the American military spending billions on r and d. I am sure there is there is something else we could spend that money on.
 
:d Suffered...let me tell you about crappy gear sonny :d

If you think the current gear sucks...or lack of training dollars...you should have been in 30 years ago. I did get to shoot a TOW though. I was told that was only because they had a limited shelf life.
 
This whatever-it-is gave me a really good giggle but it also made me sad at the waste of a perfectly good Elcan scope...

I have printed a picture of it and pinned it on the wall near my reloading equipment so I can have a good laugh every day.
 
Sasko31 said:
Just curious why we try to do research and development of this type, with the American military spending billions on r and d. I am sure there is there is something else we could spend that money on.
Click to expand...

This makes sense and then just like our Canadian Colt rifles we put a positive spin on their kit with our own improvements. As for something else, you can never have enough ammo. to practice with along with the premium (cool and fun) training that go's with it, both of which have been sorely missed for decades in our CAF's...

Cheers D
 
I tried making some kind of mock-up of it next to an M16 in a flash program called pimpmygun. My plan was to just get the general proportions to see how it compares to the M16, wasn't trying too hard to make it look nice.
In my opinion it looks like some kind of bulky, unrefined XM29 prototype. Also, just realized I forgot the handgrip on the front.

fFFcbJK.png
 
Sasko31 said:
Just curious why we try to do research and development of this type, with the American military spending billions on r and d. I am sure there is there is something else we could spend that money on.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Almost every industry have had some sort of convergence and reusability to save cost. Building your own nowadays carry much capital and on going cost. Not to mention availability of those unique parts. It make you think though what rationale was made to go this route. In any industry when budget is tight one of the first things to be affected is reasearch and development.
 
All I read about nows is cots commercial off the shelf purchasing. I remember the radio replacement program from years ago. We were carrying around 25 sets when at the same time we were training with the Rangers and each squad and team had bendix king or Motorola super Saber radios what the cf spent on research and development we could have purchased the same radio off the shelf for every combat arms soldier in the army at the time.
frequency hopping secure voice comms down to team level.
This goes beyond silly, what are they actually thinking that is not spending our defense budget very well.
 
And that is SAD :(
-[Crosshair]- said:
4 magazines*. :ninja:

Don't forget the "tactical" charging-handle latches. Or the TRIADs. Or the vertical grip rail on the C9A2s. Or the folding mechanism for the C9A2's stock that gives us a great length of pull of 2 feet. Definitely what we need on a heavy weapon.

Everything we're getting is a cheap as hell, half-a**ed version of something that's actually good... that other countries have already been using for years.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom