The future of the C7?

shawn said:
No money for ammo or blanks.

You actually had to say bang bang on ex so people knew you we shooting.
Click to expand...

"Tank-ety-Tank, Tank-ety-Tank"

Flashing high beams to indicate your vehicle was firing it's main gun, rapid flashing for machine guns...

Being dressed up and down if you broke the plastic mag cause they were expensive.

Foot powder in the defrost vent (with windshield folded down) as your "smoke screen" deployment.

Oh the memories...
 
Could't even afford dummy grenade... Empty pop cans filled with dirt with guntape on top... Ha the 90's....

Or sometime we did get blanks... 10 rds per mags... 2 mags
One tunderflash per section and one paraflare per platoon
 
CZ85Combat said:
Could't even afford dummy grenade... Empty pop cans filled with dirt with guntape on top... Ha the 90's....

Or sometime we did get blanks... 10 rds per mags... 2 mags
One tunderflash per section and one paraflare per platoon
Click to expand...

wow and here I thought that the 70's were the cheap years
 
CZ85Combat said:
Could't even afford dummy grenade... Empty pop cans filled with dirt with guntape on top... Ha the 90's....

Or sometime we did get blanks... 10 rds per mags... 2 mags
One tunderflash per section and one paraflare per platoon
Click to expand...

Sounds like what you get issued on a UN tour :p
 
Whats is the requirement?

You need a Requirement based in reality to affect change.

I can give you a Case Telescoping 7mm round that has it all over 5.56 and 7.62 NATO will less recoil, flatter trajectory, better barrier and terminal performance, in a platform that weights less than the C7A2 and has a FF barrel and modular rails.

However before I can bring it to market I need the government to tell me thats what they want, not just the End Users saying stuff.

Unfortunately CS45 is right - but if he could write a good requirement...
Or if he was still in.

Ironically, all of the key SA Development folks from NATO book appointments at SHOT (last week) with companies like KAC -- I met with a lot of movers and shakers, but no one from Canada...
Maybe DLR still hates me for all the UCR's...
 
Kevin, I thought we were spending a fortune on developing the rifle of the future - you'd figure if that was the case they'd at least want to look at the rest of the world, or is that program just another CF time waster.
 
Claven2 said:
4) The CF rail accepts all M1913 accessories, but offers more options and easier logistics. I fail to see this as a negative???
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's incorrect. Most accessories won't fit a Weaver rail. I've tried Larue, Arms, ADM, none of them will fit without modification. Apparently Knight's mounts will work but I have no experience with them. Also not sure how you think it offers more options?

We were the first to go with a flat top, don't think Picatinny even existed, unfortunately some early adopters get stung when a different format prevails as the accepted standard. Kind of like Beta or the HD DVD drive on my laptop.
 
#### Swan (ARMS) pointed out the upper receiver height of the Canadian rail is really too thin, and so the M1913 rail spec for the upper was created.

I do not beleive Colt Canada makes 'Weaver" uppers anymore.
 
A few parts have been looked at but the c7 will start being replaced in a couple years.
The new rifle will fire caseless ammunition. What has not been decided is if we will go true caseless or the intermidate "caseless" (think shot gun shell with no rear cap firing a riffle bullet). The second is the most likly as it is currently cheaper and more reliable.


Some of the new rifle accesories on the table include a powered rail set (currently in testing) so you clip on the accesories and the power is provided by a internal battery through studs in the rail. This has been universaly aposed by the troops as it will add a lot of weight to the rifle and the "studs" have realabilty issues.
 
LordEvilPepper said:
A few parts have been looked at but the c7 will start being replaced in a couple years.
The new rifle will fire caseless ammunition. What has not been decided is if we will go true caseless or the intermidate "caseless" (think shot gun shell with no rear cap firing a riffle bullet). The second is the most likly as it is currently cheaper and more reliable.
Click to expand...

Guys who attended the focus group told me something similar.

What I took away from it all is that this is where they'd like to see small arms development head. I have a hard time believing that we'll switch to caseless ammo when no one has been able to make it work properly, even if they did we're a NATO country and until NATO decides to make the switch to some super space ammo we'll continue to use SS109.
 
from what I got from the focus group is that the itermidiate caseless ammo was working, proven "reliable" and was ready for the next step. Basicly its like firing normal bullets from a modified shotgun haul... much cheaper, much lighter.
What realy seemed up for debate was the ignition of said rounds.... I think the guy waffled through something about electronic ignition good for a few thosand rounds on a battery charge or something like that as a potential candidate instead of strike primers
 
LordEvilPepper said:
from what I got from the focus group is that the itermidiate caseless ammo was working, proven "reliable" and was ready for the next step. Basicly its like firing normal bullets from a modified shotgun haul... much cheaper, much lighter.
What realy seemed up for debate was the ignition of said rounds.... I think the guy waffled through something about electronic ignition good for a few thosand rounds on a battery charge or something like that as a potential candidate instead of strike primers
Click to expand...

Yeah that will work great in the cold...:rolleyes:
 
SARP will die when the price per unit becomes public.

It is an exercise in increasing hit probability by spending lots and lots of money while reducing the little money spent on training.

A scope that can dope wind and mirage? Good luck with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom