C7A1 vs M16A4 - small arms solutions
- Thread starter cyclone
- Start date
Did the CF really stick with the 20" barrel for reliability though or is that a copout?
It would appear to me our country has made some decent decisions with respect to the C7 and C7A1, but then sh!t the bed soon after.
They haven't kept pace and this is evident through all arms fielded from the Inglis HP to Leopard tanks.
The good calls are overshadowed by the bad or indifferent, and it seems they are the exception, not the norm....
It would appear to me our country has made some decent decisions with respect to the C7 and C7A1, but then sh!t the bed soon after.
They haven't kept pace and this is evident through all arms fielded from the Inglis HP to Leopard tanks.
The good calls are overshadowed by the bad or indifferent, and it seems they are the exception, not the norm....
Armour Recce got brand new C8A3 awhile ago but infantry got stuck with C7A2.
It has nothing to due with reliability but some other stupid reasons most just give up on figuring out. It will only blow your mind if you have to figure the reasons behind many things.
At least the people who watched the magpul videos when they were in their mid 20's and early 30's back in 2009 finally got into the leadership position to make some good progression.
And what they "want " for the next gen 11" gun with suppressor are on the right path.
At the end of the day, there are two principal factors influencing the CAF's small arms development and fielding. The over-arcing factor is money. It is not a lack of available public funds per se, but rather the comparatively low priority assigned to small arms development and acquisition within a cash-starved force that is currently lacking complete primary capabilities such as Ground-Based Air-Defence.
The second, amplifying factor is the fatally-flawed and glacially-paced Canadian government procurement system with its insistence upon open competition, regional development spin-offs (eg. jobs & purchase of raw materials) and of course, kick-backs to "friends" of the ruling political party.
That's it, that's all there is to it. Even if the current CDS were a proponent of new infantry small arms and threw an adequate slice of the defence budget behind such a project? It would still take years to ramp up production and field a new fleet of small arms, even with sole-source contracting through Canada's National Centre of Excellence at Colt Canada. Beltfed is absolutely correct that the CAF have failed to keep pace with the cutting edge of international small arms development. Although there is really nothing wrong with what the CAF currently has for small arms, the lack of constant, incremental improvement/upgrading to Canada's small arms fleet ultimately results in obsolescence before suitable replacement weapons can be procured, produced and fielded.
The second, amplifying factor is the fatally-flawed and glacially-paced Canadian government procurement system with its insistence upon open competition, regional development spin-offs (eg. jobs & purchase of raw materials) and of course, kick-backs to "friends" of the ruling political party.
That's it, that's all there is to it. Even if the current CDS were a proponent of new infantry small arms and threw an adequate slice of the defence budget behind such a project? It would still take years to ramp up production and field a new fleet of small arms, even with sole-source contracting through Canada's National Centre of Excellence at Colt Canada. Beltfed is absolutely correct that the CAF have failed to keep pace with the cutting edge of international small arms development. Although there is really nothing wrong with what the CAF currently has for small arms, the lack of constant, incremental improvement/upgrading to Canada's small arms fleet ultimately results in obsolescence before suitable replacement weapons can be procured, produced and fielded.
It's funny how sometimes we are way out there in front; one of the first users of the FN-FAL, C6/C9, the C79 optic, the Carl Gustav... to name a few.
But then we run the Browning HiPo way past it's best before date, the C13 Hand Grenade (I've got some funny, but not so funny stories related to that unmitigated disaster), the short lived C6 non-adjustable gas plug, the C7A2 (that should've been the C8A3) that didn't really suit anyone well.
I'm a former 041/043/24A. The list of failed Field Engineer/Combat Engineer equipment experiments could take up a page.
Anyway, I gave up even trying to understand what the hell goes on at DLR, little own the politics of it all.
But then we run the Browning HiPo way past it's best before date, the C13 Hand Grenade (I've got some funny, but not so funny stories related to that unmitigated disaster), the short lived C6 non-adjustable gas plug, the C7A2 (that should've been the C8A3) that didn't really suit anyone well.
I'm a former 041/043/24A. The list of failed Field Engineer/Combat Engineer equipment experiments could take up a page.
Anyway, I gave up even trying to understand what the hell goes on at DLR, little own the politics of it all.
Diamondback Six
CGN frequent flyer
In technical terms, once you start shortening the barrel you get a lot less forgiving in the envelopes between gas system length, gas port size, buffer weight and spring strength--and ALL of these have to be adjusted together to maintain a balanced platform through the firing cycle. ANd then if you add cans into the mix that only adds to the fun...
If a theoretical new country, call it the Cascadia Republic, asked me to consult on standardizing rifles for its infantry, I would give the 20" rifle to Squad Designated Marksmen and the 14.5" as General Issue. 12.5's for anyone with Close Quarters work as a primary mission, and 10.3's as PDWs for the non-combat backlines.
If a theoretical new country, call it the Cascadia Republic, asked me to consult on standardizing rifles for its infantry, I would give the 20" rifle to Squad Designated Marksmen and the 14.5" as General Issue. 12.5's for anyone with Close Quarters work as a primary mission, and 10.3's as PDWs for the non-combat backlines.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Lets be honest a couple extra inches does not make it that much more difficult getting in and out of a vehicle. 
Stubbies for cooks just adds an extra supply chain issue where your supply chain is usually working against your own military.
The simple facts are that the shorter the barrel the harder it is to to shoot well with anything ....
Most people in uniforms are unskilled at weapons handling and worse at actually shooting
The further from the Infantry you get the less skill you will find.
Also Speed kills, velocity must be preserved.
Stubbies for cooks just adds an extra supply chain issue where your supply chain is usually working against your own military.The simple facts are that the shorter the barrel the harder it is to to shoot well with anything ....
Most people in uniforms are unskilled at weapons handling and worse at actually shooting
The further from the Infantry you get the less skill you will find.
Also Speed kills, velocity must be preserved.
We really are a 3rd world banana dictatorship aren't we. All decisions must be made with an eye to the potential for corruption and kickbacks.
Lets be honest a couple extra inches does not make it that much more difficult getting in and out of a vehicle.
The simple facts are that the shorter the barrel the harder it is to to shoot well with anything ....
Most people in uniforms are unskilled at weapons handling and worse at actually shooting
The further from the Infantry you get the less skill you will find.
Also Speed kills, velocity must be preserved.
Look at Ukraine and Gaza and tell me a long barrelled rifle and experienced marksmanship count for anything. These days 90+ percent of firefights are conducted at very close range, often in buildings or in trench networks and bunkers.
Vietnam era 55gr ball killed lots of people. I certainly wouldn't want to take a hit from that at any distance. Who cares if 55gr produces a little bit less terminal performance? Just shoot the guy a couple of more times ... thats what is happening in real world combat today.
These days, everyone is wearing rifle rated plates, making the bullet's terminal performance much less relevant.
I'd much rather have a short, handy rifle than a fricken broomstick that is difficult to bring to bear in confined spaces.
I thought that comment was weird as well.
In a modern AR15, you can build an AR15 to almost any length (practically speaking) and have a reliable system. There are reliable AR15's in operation that are well below the 20" barrels of the CF.
Militaries don't pick/select their weapon systems and desired features because they are "the best". The military buys whatever equipment meets their arbitrary requirements at the best price, in contract solicitations that are written by people who aren't experts.
421SuperDuty
Regular
- Location
- 中华人民共和国加拿大省
Much of the current firearms thinking has been dictated from the Afghanistan experience with infantry and specops fighting long range firefights with insurgents, leading to anachronisms like the XM-7 with it's ridiculous 80,000PSI 6.8 round, we've forgotten that real war is large numbers of poorly trained troops hosing rapid/automatic fire in the general direction of the enemy while tanks, artillery and air power do the actual killing and war winning.
Long range firefights… Not sure I agree with that comment.
Sure, some crazy long range sniper engagements came out of Afghanistan, but Insurgents generally knew their best chance for success was in closer than what CAS or other systems would allow for. At least that was my experience.
5.56 has not been effective putting down troops with plates, or are jacked up on drugs. Frankly I’m glad they are starting to address it.
421SuperDuty
Regular
- Location
- 中华人民共和国加拿大省
Well that's what i heard from the americans, i'm sure there were lots of close range fights too, lots of door kicking and police action that demanded putting people down fast and it's true that 5.56 isn't as effective as it needs to be, but that return to full power rounds is nonsense. Why not return to the C1 FAL at that point. I'm partial to the new 6 to 6.5mm rounds like the 6 ARC and 6.5 Grendel myself. It may not go through Level IV plates but at some point you need to accept the trade-off, HE-FRAG ordnance of all sizes and delivery methods is how you're going to get rid of serious problems anyway.
The new 6.8 round chosen by the US and its gigantic rifle are a ridiculous choice that is bound to fail very quickly once issued in large numbers. The majority of soldiers aren't going to be able to shoot that thing well and its size and weight will be seriously limiting factors in close quarters combat.
Level 4 plates are designed to stop 30-06 AP projectiles. Somehow I doubt the new 6.8 rounds will effectively penetrate those plates. Even if they do, it will be quicker and easier for armour companies to increase plate protection level than any military can upgrade ammo and weapons systems.
762x39 out of an AK isn't exactly a long range combination. There is simply no need for a combination like the new US 6.8 round when the enemy is still wielding rickety old AKs and US soldiers are going to pay the price for the foolishness of their superiors.
I have a fairly diverse collection of firearms. What you won’t find in my collection is a 5.56mm. I do have a number of contemporary 7.62x39 platforms. The current 5.56mm NATO needs a reworking. Maybe a total shift to 77gr? I dunno the correct answer here, but clearly the performance over the past two decades has caused the US military to reconsider.
That said, I’m not going to argue about the decision to go with the 6.8 as it’s doubtful it’ll show up in Canadian service anytime soon, and even the manner in which the US is rolling it out demonstrates quite a bit of hesitation. Seems an awful lot like 7.62x51 to me, and we know how that chapter ended last time.
I had an acquaintance who took a 7.62x39 to his front plate in 2006. Even without penetrating the plate, by his own admission, it scattered him pretty good in the moment.
556 has killed and awful lot of people in its near 65 year history. As a combat round it has a lot going for it and a load of really good rifles chambered in it.
You may be correct about the projectile choice for 556 but that would seem to be an easily achievable correction. 762x39 ammo is mostly crap FMJ in comparison to much of the premium 556/223 ammo available in N America. If one is really set on a 30 cal projectile there is always 300 BLK, which only requires a barrel swap.
I have no doubt that taking a round in the plates is a significant event, but no matter how bad that is, it is nowhere near as bad as taking that same round through the chest.
Paperpunch1
New member
- Location
- West Philadelphia, born and raised
I don’t think you should ever go under 14.5 in 556. At that point, you’re just not utilizing the runs even close to its specifications.
No matter what cartridge the US employs, it will always be considering another one. That's part of many peoples jobs within their MIC machine.
