Canadian Modular Assault Rifle

[Big Bad]

Canadian Modular Assault Rifle https://apps.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1696

Does anyone know more about the CMAR?

If it goes ahead, this program will probably end up costing about as much as a nuclear aircraft carrier- and history suggests, also produce an inferior rifle. As already stated, there are better priorities than replacing the current and apparently excellent new rifle (see post #2), let's start with adequate cold weather sleeping bags for everyone.

 

[TechNeck]

7.62×51mm NATO = ~1,500 metres = ~3,600 J

.338 Norma Magnum = ~2,000+ metres = ~6,600 J

https://web.archive.org/web/2020012...leases/ussocom-purchases-mg-338-machine-guns/

Doesnt matter, c6 will smash soft targets at 2400m off a tripod regardless... you rarly shoot past 1200m off a bipod, most engagements are less then 600m (iron sights after all) and at that range it smashes through cinder blocks and other light fortifications.

All you are doing is humping more weight for less ammo going to the .338LM

The .338LM would be a replacment for the .50 and its a poor replacement for the .50 as you just dont have the projectile mass to have effective AP rounds
"Modern" aka 1990s and after armour can stop .338lm AP no issues... 3/8 cms19 is rated for that... (LAVs) its rated for .50 cal too... but there is minimuim distance required to block it which says a lot when compairing the rounds...

 

[TechNeck]

The CMR project was suposed to switch to caseless or semi caseless ammo.... i see the CAF has abandoned that after dumping a lot of money into it.
The plan was to have gyrojet style rounds so you could pack a #### ton and not have to wory about brass... the other option was semi cased.. so think shotgun style plastic hulls but no brass back and electronically fired.. so you are basically ejecting plastic straws not shell casings... significant cost and weight savings and potentially much higher mags capacity

 

[Yeandle31]

Is that the C8A4 ?

The C8A4 and CMAR are different programs.

The C8A4 is a "upgrade" program for the in-service C7A2s and C8A3s. It would essentially see all these systems stripped and have a monolithic upper added, then cerakoted. In concept, this would be a siiliar idea to the Mid-Life Upgrade Program that was done in the early/mid 2000s, which introcuded the C7A2 and C8A3. The photos shown with 1RCR on the range shows some of the 500 C8A4 conversions during user trials. In essence, this program would see the end of a C7 series Rifle and C8 series carbine and streamline them into a universial C8A4 rifle.

The CMAR program would be an entirely new procurement for DND. The photo above was a very early concept built on a Colt M5 lower. However, Colt Canada has entirely moved on from that design and has created their own. The CMAR program would, as of now, introduce a CMAR - General Service (GS) and CMAR - Sharp Shooter (SS). The GS would have a 14.5" barrel and the SS would have a longer (unchromed) barrel ultimately to replicate a C20 SASW in 5.56x45mm NATO. The end goal of the CMAR program would be to see them issued to the RegF infantry battalions, while everyone else gets the C8A4.

All this being said, the programs are all very fluid as there are many stakeholders. There is a lot of testing (technical and user) ongoing to validate configurations. Of course, there still the issue of funding. I would not be surprised to see all of this change before final procurement.

Cheers,
Kevin

 

[Ecco]

Herein some more up to date information about CMAR and C8A4.

The CMAR project is moving at breakneck speed (for a DND capital acquisition project anyways). Funding is not an issue anymore, the project is just jumping through all procedural hoops to move forward.

The CMAR will equip all Canadian Forces with 2 different designs, most of them being the General Service (GS) (about 58k units) and the Full Spectrum (FS) variant (about 7k units). The biggest differences are that the GS is general issue and intended for self-protection and deterrence, with a 11' barrel and suitable accuracy for 300 meters engagements (1x to 6x optics), while the FS is for infantry and combat arms, with a 14.5' barrel and accuracy for engagements up to 500 meters (1x to 10x optics). Both versions will have integrated suppression/noise and flash attenuation, free floated barrels, enhanced ammunition, better ergonomics, a modern handguard, etc...
The C8A4 is somewhat different as it is not part of the CMAR project, but an update to the in-service C7. We will end up with about 8k units of C8A4 in service.

There is still no consensus in the RCIC to move forward with a sharpshooter version, although plans exist for it. Just no movement on those plans right now.

 

[SilentKnight]

A 6.8 conversion for the 240 is around, that along will be much better than 7.62.

The Medium MG in 338 is BIG and the rounds are BIG. Maybe when the robotic mules are around to carry all the stuff it will be a good idea. Until then, 6.8 is the way to go.

Their priority should be replacing the POS C9 and the inadequate C79 with something like the Evolys and Aimpoint + magnifier + ballsitic cam - from LMG to a more light weight "assault" MG.

The HK 421 looks pretty sweet for a lightweight assault MG option

 

[55recce]

C9 probably the best LMG around. Used by many countires and battle proven. Not sure why anyone would call it POS.

Elcan C79 is not a bad scope. Bear in mind this was the first optic on rifles issued to regular soldiers in any NATO country. Its rather dated now but to call it inadequate is to ignore its groundbreaking history.

BTW - none of this discussion is really about MBR so not sure why we are in this forum.

 

[apexanimal]

Would it not make sense to put time and money into training how to use the existing small arms as effectively as possible?
No point in buying new arms when there seems to be little interest in promoting marksmanship.

To an extent. The "current" c7 rifles were outdated in the early 2000s. There is no way to reliably mount lasers and lights, necessary for modern service rifles. "B..but muh paq worked fine in Afghanistan!" Sure, and many didnt on that janky a$$ cadex rail on the rattly plastic handguards. You can be the best shot on earth but someone blasting a surefire into your face in a cqb situation will make your marksmanship skills worth very little. This is more of a "why cant we have both?" Situation as the military is so small giving them modern rifles and giving them the time ammo and training to use them would be a sliver of less important programs that are green lit every year.

 

[HeadDamage]

With all the drone stuff I'm surprised they aren't trotting out a shotgun of some sort. Saw an article the other day saying the Russian military is asking for shotguns to be donated to the war effort (don't know if this is really happening).

 

[maple_leaf_eh]

Doesnt matter, c6 will smash soft targets at 2400m off a tripod regardless... you rarely shoot past 1200m off a bipod, most engagements are less then 600m (iron sights after all) and at that range it smashes through cinder blocks and other light fortifications.

....

The .338LM would be a replacement for the .50 and its a poor replacement for the .50 as you just don't have the projectile mass to have effective AP rounds
...

Indirect machine gunnery is area denial. The idea of setting a tripod, using aiming posts, and feeding belt after belt without seeing the fall of shot is bizarre to most machine gunners, but it is a valid tactic employment of the capability. Having a longer range with bigger projectiles achieves the same purpose, but who is directing the fire? Is it a FOO or another 031 with binos? That said, the .50 is probably the worst holdover small arm in the inventory when there are modern replacements. A very heavy rifle cartridge machine gun was issued by Sweden with their 8x63. More than the rifle round, and not as much as mortars or infantry support artillery.

 

[sidester]

Where do they store tampons in the gun?
The butt....stock?

 

[55recce]

The inappropriatness of this comment is beyond comprehension. Making it puts all forum members in a bad light.

 

[trevj]

The inappropriatness of this comment is beyond comprehension. Making it puts all forum members in a bad light.

No, as a former serving Member of the CF, this question closely aligns with the general direction I saw the entire CF take, when the "right thinkers" started having influence in policy. Despite that they were largely LEFT thinkers, forcing their views on others. But if you have enough time on your hands, you can make more noise, than the folks that are busy trying to pay their own bills can!

Want anything resembling equality? Put a condom machine beside every tampon machine, in every bathroom, then take the his and hers door signs off.