Canadian Army to acquire new multi-calibre sniper weapons

If the army didn't end up with a kraken I'd be surprised, being Canadian and already providing lots of high end parts to the CF for other things.
The prices that the military pays for things is absurd. I forget what the PGW cost exactly, but I think it's in excess of 15K. Don't forget the military will need suppressors and extra mags and some spare parts to go with theirs as well, easily adding a few more K$ to the normal price. Plus it's a government contract, so it will obviously cost way more.

Realistically the PGW's could be run for years to come, they army needs to be bring back some skill sets to the weapons tech trade. Unfortunately that trade has transformed into nothing but parts changers. There are lathes all over the place in the military, the actions need to be trued up and a new barrel chambered. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the actions. They could use some work here and there, but the ability to spin a new barrel on when they burn out, quickly and efficiently could extend the life of these rifles for a decade.

Then the army could concentrate on the totally botched procurement of a gas gun and get some damn gas guns out to the field units.
 
Wulfgard said:
Cadex is making the Kraken Multi Caliber, supposed to be very innovative with quick barrel swaps. I'd rather see the contract go to a Canadian company than a foreign one (Never could understand why most of the US military arms are made in Europe like Belgium or Germany). Kraken does 260, 6.5 CM, 6.5x47, 308 win, 300 WM, 300 Norma Mag and 338 Lapua. roughly 7200 before taxes, bet the military would get a hell of a discount over civvies.
Click to expand...

LOL!

yeah there is a reason our new ranger rifles cost $7000... and civvie side they cost $2700... and without the irons and fancy custom stock they cost $1300
 
I haven't been following this acquisition too closely, but hasn't the trend amongst our NATO allies been to adopt SR-25 or the LMT, HK equivalent in 7.62mm NATO for medium range taskings and sticking with the. 338 LM for longer ranges out to 1500M? (USA. 300 Win Mag); while various .50BMG models remain slotted for anti-material and ultra long range sniping roles?
 
I haven't been following this too closely either, but I get the impression the Canadian Army is doing essentially the same thing. The new multi-barrel system I think they are planning to use primarily in .338 Lapua, with a 7.62mm NATO barrel only for use under select circumstances (ranges that don't allow .338, etc.). The army has also indicated they want to purchase a new 7.62mm NATO semi-automatic rifle for use by snipers.
 
Bartok5 said:
This. I think that the CADEX KRAKEN, with some tweaking for weight loss, could be a strong contender. A made in Canada solution to a genuine operational and training necessity for our snipers. Wouldn't that be something?
Click to expand...

Do we really need a made in Canada solution ???? There are many off the shelf systems that deliver the same product at a larger saving than buying local.
The Right Tool for the right job does not matter where it is made. Typically buying Canadian for the DND means spending more and getting less .
 
Savage said:
Do we really need a made in Canada solution ???? There are many off the shelf systems that deliver the same product at a larger saving than buying local.
The Right Tool for the right job does not matter where it is made. Typically buying Canadian for the DND means spending more and getting less .
Click to expand...

Yes! Lets take your money from the taxes and spend it abroad. It works just fine, look at Ranger Rifle contract. That off the shelf Tikka is costing us just $5K each. Imagine how much would it be extra if it was god forbid made by a local company.

PS
Are you an investment banker or something? Never fought I would hear that kind of reasoning on CGN.
 
Who says the Cadex Kraken would even meet the standards/requirements (accuracy and otherwise)?

..I'm not saying it would or wouldn't.. there's just more to it than simply being a switch barrel rifle.
 
The real issue that many fail to see is that CF contracts for small arms and the costs that tend to be absurd on these contract' include include support spare parts and training of weapons techs on 2nd and 3rd line repairs . These extras are what civilian shooters fail to understand. Do we get get a better more efficient bang for our dollar by buying local the answer is NO and you can thank the Liberal government that was run by JT's daddy for this as it was his government that destroyed many Canadian defense companies from staying in Canada due to his hatred of the Military and putting of defense procurement programs for close to 30 + years
 
Savage said:
The real issue that many fail to see is that CF contracts for small arms and the costs that tend to be absurd on these contract' include include support spare parts and training of weapons techs on 2nd and 3rd line repairs . These extras are what civilian shooters fail to understand.
Click to expand...

Yes, I for one, fail to understand how Tikka CTR - $1400 retail, with a laminate stock translates into Tikka Arctic - $2.6k retail. But some spare parts and illusionary 2nd and 3rd line repairs bump it up to $5k per rifle for a bulk government contract. These are the savings you talk about? Buying abroad for cheap right?

Cadex is in business now. Makes rifles. PGW is in business now. Makes rifles. Alberta Tactical is in business right now. Makes rifles. MDT is in business right now, cuts chassis for anyone. Tangent Theta is in business now, makes optics second to none probably.

But no, it is all fault of Pierre Trudeau 30 years ago, why do anything now, lets NOW buy somewhere else and save a dime.
 
What the army needs to do is take a serious look at the way the Marines run their sniper rifle system and how they maintain their rifles.
Currently we are treating sniper rifle systems like leased cars. "That's shiny. Let's buy it." then when we have problems with it we scrap it and move onto the next shiny toy.
What we should be doing is buying a robust system that can be maintained by the fleet of gun plumbers already in the CF and upgraded as necessary as technology progresses.
Let's be serious, the differences between 2 different bolt guns aren't really that big. The receiver is literally nothing but a means of transportation for a cartridge to go from a magazine to the chamber.
We don't need something that looks like it belongs in a star wars movie or has 19 gadgets on it. It needs to work every time, and preferably not weigh 1000lbs.

The army needs to rebuild the weapons tech trade from parts changers to actual gunsmiths, not all of them, the range of weapons in the CF is too great for that. They need to let guys specialize and leave them in those specialty positions. Such as a specialty that is based around maintaining precision rifles.
Despite the "issues" with the PGW guns in the system they could easily be used for another decade or 2 if we had the techs that could fix them up and change barrels in their own shops. If they wanted to upgrade from the A5 stocks to something else? Send them to depot and have them swapped over. Want to change barrel lengths or profiles? Have a new barrel put on. Want a different night vision hood installed in the stock? Send it to the shop.

The other problem is the procurement system, they need to stop coming up with a "Canadian solution" to everything and pick things that are already in existence.
 
owlowl said:
Yes, I for one, fail to understand how Tikka CTR - $1400 retail, with a laminate stock translates into Tikka Arctic - $2.6k retail. But some spare parts and illusionary 2nd and 3rd line repairs bump it up to $5k per rifle for a bulk government contract. These are the savings you talk about? Buying abroad for cheap right?

Cadex is in business now. Makes rifles. PGW is in business now. Makes rifles. Alberta Tactical is in business right now. Makes rifles. MDT is in business right now, cuts chassis for anyone. Tangent Theta is in business now, makes optics second to none probably.

But no, it is all fault of Pierre Trudeau 30 years ago, why do anything now, lets NOW buy somewhere else and save a dime.
Click to expand...

I am not against buying Canadian equipment for our military the problem lies with with a poor procurement policy keeping equipment well past is life expectancy. Yes there have been successes in buying Canadian the only one to date is the LAV ,C6,C7,C8 ,C9 and the C14 although a decent rifle not with out its problems , Most of the wheeled vehicle purchased for the CF made by Canadian forces like the Bombardier duds and the Western Star LSVW are for better words rolling scrap metal . They are just an example of a systemic problem of buying Canadian the costs are not worth the effort they are over priced and in this day in age delivering greater value for the dollar is what it is about . If it were a made in Canada made rifle for the Rangers it would cost the CF about double the price of the Tikka Artic as the CF would have to purchase things like CNC machines much like they did with PGW to build the C14 as part of the contract . The CF learned a lot from the last Sniper weapons trial,having something that is custom made is has a lot of cool factor too it and a lot of problems . The new trails will not have user input into specifications of the platform they want , something else they learned and it will be an off the shelf unit and with a shorter contractual fulfillment date
 
mustang979 said:
Are you implying the conservatives didn't do well by the military when in power for nearly a decade?
Click to expand...

No. I'm implying that all parties have badly neglected our military. I'm very anti-war, but when the Liberals had a "clothe the soldier" program as a special way to get them raincoats and boots and gloves I knew military procurement was a total ####show. How we treat our soldiers is damn near treasonous.

Cons did no better.

#### ships
sub-#### subs
#### fighters
#### choppers.

Every procurement effort is a multi decade boondoggle.

Our equipment is 30-50 years out of date. If we had to go to a real war (not a proxy or peacekeeping exercise) we would be inconsequential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom