Colt Canada C20 Sniper rifle

Bartok5 said:
My Colt USA LE901 already shoots consistent sub-moa, 5-shot groups @ 100m out of its 16" factory barrel using FGMM 175gr SMKs. I fail to see the need for a uniquely "made in Canada" solution to a common operational requirement that has already been satisfied elsewhere. Just saying...


20190102-180026.jpg
Click to expand...

Nein! NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!!!!!!!!

(I agree man.... but Jesus don’t say so out load.... Lots of Colt Canada Fanboys who like their solution to no problem ever.)

NEIN!!!! Nein Nein NEIN!!!! VERBOTEN!!!

:)Laugh2Laugh2
 
My point was that there is no need for CC to reinvent the wheel. The groundwork has already been done in a .308 AR with a monolithic Upper Receiver, that is also switch-calibre capable (if you choose to go down that particular road). There is no requirement for a uniquely-Canadian solution to common operational requirements. Otherwise we end with another 20-year kevlar helmet program instead of a kevlar helmet when we actually need the damned thing.

CC could simply put the CM/LE901 into production with minor product improvements such as the famous CC CFH Barrel with a "choke bore" for accuracy enhancement. The system as it stands is already sub-MOA. What more does CC realistically expect to achieve from further development of a gas gun? They could start fielding within months instead of years if they simply started production and made incremental improvements as they go. Get rifles in the hands of troops, and let them tell CC what they need/want through an extended and combined intitial-fielding and troop trial...
 
Last edited:
As we saw with the new Ranger rifle, the Army wants their stuff to say "Made in Canada" even if the design is foreign. So something from CC has a leg up on an import.

Meanwhile, had seen that the US is moving to 6.5 CM on some of their rifles in this size range (and even going belt-fed MG with it, which looks Just Wrong but has its logic when you're spraying targets a klick out). Possibly it's the generally-more-popular modern choice for a short-action sniper round, but the CF may be swayed by already having 7.62 NATO in the supply chain, its better terminal ballistics, and having the .338 Timberwolf to reach for when the range gets out there.
 
It is reported above that use of the existing LE901 Lower Receiver is simply for development and is not the final iteration of the C20. The eventual use of a different Lower Receiver for the C20 implies some degree of wheel reinvention to me, as there is little that has not already been done with one design of Lower or another.

Epoxy7 is correct that a Trial of competing designs in accordance with a standardjzed Statement of Requirements is required for most open-source federal contracts over a certain dollar value. However, the use of the "C20" designation suggests that the CC product under development in this thread has already been accepted for service by the CAF. Whether this is true or simply wishful marketing by CC has not yet been confirmed. Everyone in this thread is talking like the CC C20 is a "done deal" for Canada's Sniper Spotter Rifle. I am not so sure that this is actually the case (yet).

E.T.A. The first post states that the C20 was already selected as the Spotter Rifle this past August, so I guess it is a done deal. Which I find very odd if the rifle is still under development to the extent that it will have an entirely different Lower Receiver and Upper/Lower interface. Sounds increasingly like a sole-source contract, which the CAF and CC somehow managed to swing past PWGSC as a work still in progress....
 
Last edited:
Considering the amount of time they spent on this and the relative low number of production, they are going to charge the Canadian government an arm and a leg for it.
 
greentips said:
Considering the amount of time they spent on this and the relative low number of production, they are going to charge the Canadian government an arm and a leg for it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.... a solution to no problem ever.... every Colt Canada made is the same thing.... very nice rifles superfluous to supply.

You may continue to be embarrassed for me.....
 
Who doesn't question Diemaco/CC directions? Lots of weird decisions and justifications. Like the CAR stock for easy decontamination. It just couldn't be that they had a swack of old stocks the US wasn't using. Instead we get urban legends.
 
Epoxy7 said:
The part that interests me about the CC ie C20 is that they have the LMT monolithic upper, the ambi features of the 901 and have deleted the LMT barrel change along with the calibre change magazine well of the 901. I don't mind the barrel change feature on the LMT rifles for my use but it's more a convenience feature than necessary. With the 901 I avoided it because I felt the 223 to 308 conversion method was gimicky and wouldn't catch on. I still think it is.
Click to expand...

LMT MPR is LMT's submission to SCAR selection. SCAR requirements called for user-interchangeable barrel, and this later got carried to SCAR-H. Around SCAR-H time, SOCOM was toying with issuing SCAR-H with 5.56 conversion, and forgoing SCAR-L. Around that time there were interests in 5.56/7.62 calibre interchangeability but of course the idea went no where. India was also looking for a 5.65 and 7.62 system to replace INSAS, and CM901 was Colt's solution to that trial.
 
I've seen these shoot 0.2" groups at 100 meters. The 901 lower is the final lower and magazine well adapters have been thought of and tested to put 5.56 uppers on them but I don't think we'll buy and get any. They use the same cold-hammer forged barrels as in the C19 Ranger Rifles that Colt Canada also produces. It is a very accurate semi-auto gas gun and is intended to be used as a true sniper rifle and not in a designated marksman role.

They basically took the Colt 901 lower, the only thing 7.62 in the entire Colt catalog, and put their MRR upper and C19 barrels on it. They didn't reinvent anything at all and it was a pretty straight-forward and very simple rifle to test and produce.

They are great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom