The link seems to be broken...
Anyway, I'm sure a CGN Kickstarter can come up with a 3D printed weapon with an Arduino board that does the same job for 89 bucks
.
Colt Canada's Next Generation Bullpup Prototype
- Thread starter TV-PressPass
- Start date
Anyway, I'm sure a CGN Kickstarter can come up with a 3D printed weapon with an Arduino board that does the same job for 89 bucks
.
While I very much agree with your review of the current gen (and last gen... and the gen before that... actually everything after the MK3's) boots and the LBE, I wouldn't go so far as to say the Uniform or the body armour suck.
Do they have their issues? Sure. I wasn't a fan of buttons under body armour and I doubt I'll be very much a fan of zippers either, but really, you're looking at about 3 options for closing pockets, Buttons, Zippers or velcro and they all have their downsides. I'd say both the Arid and TW patterns to be top notch (though very specific) and very useable (though, again, made in Quebec presents a problem of durability but that's from production rather than design). The Frag vest carrier design also had it's faults (and many have made the argument that it would have been better to integrate the armour and the LBE together, though having them separate allows you to not have to don FFO while doing tasks that require armour but not tacvest, though I do acknowledge a potential for disagreeance on if there SHOULD be tasks that need armour but not FFO) such as the velcro and the shoulder pieces (dear god the shoulder pieces) but the armour itself worked.
All in all, I'd say that the armour was useable if not awesome, and the uniforms have their good and their bad points. We'll see how the current gen uniforms shake out.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
The uniforms are not designed for wear with body armour and are cut for the rotund.
FFO is not helpful when moving 155 shells.
FFO is not helpful when moving 155 shells.
Problems as I see it across the board in government, it that consensus ends up to be group think.
I know a lot of folks in the CF, and DND, most of them are hard working, and a great deal of them are extremely bright. Part of the issues is they are compartmentalized - and this issue occurs down south as well - so a systemic approach to the fighting soldier and sub-unit is missed -- its talked about in doctrine, but never actually studied.
However I will say that on the Armor/Helmet issue - is that protection is taking a lead over fightability. At the end of the day the soldier has a dangerous task, some of the gear designed to enable and protect him ends up being to his detriment.
The other issue seems to be the inane Made in Canada aspect - if a more applicable item is made in an allied country - buy it, or license it (and don't do an Bombardier Iltis switch-a-roo with the item).
LVSW - everything wrong with Canadian procurement can be shown in that program - WTF was it -- it sucked on hi-way, and it was a total no-go off highway (and love the squealing brakes...)
I think Colt Canada is a great company -- my issue with them (as while we partner on somethings we compete on others) is that when Colt bought Diemaco, the new Colt Canada retained the Right of First Refusal on CF Small Arms -- IMHO the Canadian Government if they wanted to retain a vital strategic small arms industry should have bought it - and re-opened it as Canadian Arsenals (take II )
Secondly on trials -- a number of former CF folks here on the board, can tell you that when a trial was undertaken, quite often troop feedback was ignored - or downright refused. Partial example where some of the C7A2 upgrades - folks may remember myself and a few others describing that issue.
1) Feedback was rebutted using R22eR feedback - saying the snagging handle, Ambo Mag Release (with less purchase than the original Norgon) and others where well accepted during trials with the Vandoo's --
a) apparently the idea of wearing dummy mitts with a cord thru it to shake off upon the needs to use weapons and then use the anti-contact gloves was not thought of.
b) talking to folks in 3R22eR - they used the Support Company (mechanics, truckers, cooks etc) to do the testing.
TRIAD - pitchfork of doom has cost the CF a lot more than if they had bought M4/M5 RAS from KAC even at a commercial price -- I had posted years ago the memo that was sent out to rebutt CF members who where using RAS on CF weapons for trials, but could not use them at parent units (safety...) and the claim was that the RAS was going to cost $800 a pop -- when the commercial retail price was under $400...
Boots -- boot trial was utterly flawed - as 1 company had troops issued 1 of the various new boots -- how can they compare the other new options?
ELCAN sight - and here I can really get going -- the concept was simply to increase troops range scores, no thought into the close battle, but the belief from year of the Cold War was that we would be picking off Russians at 400-500m, and thus that was the focus.
IIRC most units got issued C7A1's in the 1994 timeframe - there have been a number of weapons "upgrades" since then - but no new optics trial
- also the lack of a real rail still plagues the CF - want to mount a II or Thermal sight to a C7/C8 -- not happening.
Frankly I think the easiest CoA for the CF on weapons is to issue the C8IUR - and then hold an optic and accessory trial.
The fact that all troops don't have NOD's and PEQ's is basically criminal.
I know a lot of folks in the CF, and DND, most of them are hard working, and a great deal of them are extremely bright. Part of the issues is they are compartmentalized - and this issue occurs down south as well - so a systemic approach to the fighting soldier and sub-unit is missed -- its talked about in doctrine, but never actually studied.
However I will say that on the Armor/Helmet issue - is that protection is taking a lead over fightability. At the end of the day the soldier has a dangerous task, some of the gear designed to enable and protect him ends up being to his detriment.
The other issue seems to be the inane Made in Canada aspect - if a more applicable item is made in an allied country - buy it, or license it (and don't do an Bombardier Iltis switch-a-roo with the item).
LVSW - everything wrong with Canadian procurement can be shown in that program - WTF was it -- it sucked on hi-way, and it was a total no-go off highway (and love the squealing brakes...)
I think Colt Canada is a great company -- my issue with them (as while we partner on somethings we compete on others) is that when Colt bought Diemaco, the new Colt Canada retained the Right of First Refusal on CF Small Arms -- IMHO the Canadian Government if they wanted to retain a vital strategic small arms industry should have bought it - and re-opened it as Canadian Arsenals (take II
) Secondly on trials -- a number of former CF folks here on the board, can tell you that when a trial was undertaken, quite often troop feedback was ignored - or downright refused. Partial example where some of the C7A2 upgrades - folks may remember myself and a few others describing that issue.
1) Feedback was rebutted using R22eR feedback - saying the snagging handle, Ambo Mag Release (with less purchase than the original Norgon) and others where well accepted during trials with the Vandoo's --
a) apparently the idea of wearing dummy mitts with a cord thru it to shake off upon the needs to use weapons and then use the anti-contact gloves was not thought of.
b) talking to folks in 3R22eR - they used the Support Company (mechanics, truckers, cooks etc) to do the testing.
TRIAD - pitchfork of doom has cost the CF a lot more than if they had bought M4/M5 RAS from KAC even at a commercial price -- I had posted years ago the memo that was sent out to rebutt CF members who where using RAS on CF weapons for trials, but could not use them at parent units (safety...) and the claim was that the RAS was going to cost $800 a pop -- when the commercial retail price was under $400...
Boots -- boot trial was utterly flawed - as 1 company had troops issued 1 of the various new boots -- how can they compare the other new options?
ELCAN sight - and here I can really get going -- the concept was simply to increase troops range scores, no thought into the close battle, but the belief from year of the Cold War was that we would be picking off Russians at 400-500m, and thus that was the focus.
IIRC most units got issued C7A1's in the 1994 timeframe - there have been a number of weapons "upgrades" since then - but no new optics trial
- also the lack of a real rail still plagues the CF - want to mount a II or Thermal sight to a C7/C8 -- not happening.
Frankly I think the easiest CoA for the CF on weapons is to issue the C8IUR - and then hold an optic and accessory trial.
The fact that all troops don't have NOD's and PEQ's is basically criminal.
redshooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Central Ontario
Thanks Kevin! More food for thought.
Just to support what KevinB said (not that he needs it)
Someone somewhere in the chain of command gets an idea, like "more body armor!" and all of a sudden there is a scramble to get more body armor. It can be beneficial but it can also be stupid when you loose all your mobility because you have infantry foot soldiers floundering around in armor that makes them look like an EOD guy. I'm exaggerating but not that much. Same goes with armor. People were screaming in the news for more armor for the LAV3s but there comes a point where you can have too much armor and again it ruins it's mobility and ability to fight.
LSVW's story is hilarious. Someone in the chain of command wanted it and failing the required tests wouldn't get in the way. The LSVW failed the first standard it was supposed to reach so the test was rewritten so it would pass. The POS failed the second, rewritten test so we said #### it and bought them anyways. Naturally we bought the ####tiest cheapest version too.
I've been involved in a few trials and in everyone of them the soldiers were treated like morons. The soldiers input was almost an afterthought and seems to always be ignored. Being forced to test a piece of equipment while people look down their nose at you and won't even listen to your input is great.
I don't know what model or whatever it is but I got a KAC quadrail of a US supply dude overseas and it was a perfect fit on my C7. Extremely solid and it let me use a verticle grip while mounting the PAQ4 on top of the rifle which made it more balanced. I have no idea why we use that small POS Tri-rail.
Boots are dumb. The rule where we have to buy Canadian is great politics but stupid for equipping our fighting soldiers.
As far as optics go, I'm not sure if they are forgeries but I've seen quite a few pictures of ISIS soldiers using $2000 Elcan Spectre DRs on their rifles, meanwhile our front line infantry guys are rocking 21 year old elcans that loose their zero if your helmet touches the sight while shooting.
Someone somewhere in the chain of command gets an idea, like "more body armor!" and all of a sudden there is a scramble to get more body armor. It can be beneficial but it can also be stupid when you loose all your mobility because you have infantry foot soldiers floundering around in armor that makes them look like an EOD guy. I'm exaggerating but not that much. Same goes with armor. People were screaming in the news for more armor for the LAV3s but there comes a point where you can have too much armor and again it ruins it's mobility and ability to fight.
LSVW's story is hilarious. Someone in the chain of command wanted it and failing the required tests wouldn't get in the way. The LSVW failed the first standard it was supposed to reach so the test was rewritten so it would pass. The POS failed the second, rewritten test so we said #### it and bought them anyways. Naturally we bought the ####tiest cheapest version too.
I've been involved in a few trials and in everyone of them the soldiers were treated like morons. The soldiers input was almost an afterthought and seems to always be ignored. Being forced to test a piece of equipment while people look down their nose at you and won't even listen to your input is great.
I don't know what model or whatever it is but I got a KAC quadrail of a US supply dude overseas and it was a perfect fit on my C7. Extremely solid and it let me use a verticle grip while mounting the PAQ4 on top of the rifle which made it more balanced. I have no idea why we use that small POS Tri-rail.
Boots are dumb. The rule where we have to buy Canadian is great politics but stupid for equipping our fighting soldiers.
As far as optics go, I'm not sure if they are forgeries but I've seen quite a few pictures of ISIS soldiers using $2000 Elcan Spectre DRs on their rifles, meanwhile our front line infantry guys are rocking 21 year old elcans that loose their zero if your helmet touches the sight while shooting.
Hit the nail on the head on that one. lmao
TimberWolf_3063
CGN Regular
- Location
- Victoria, B. C.
- The ELCAN is not bad on a C7 in an open field, but in anything even resembling close quarters, a C8 w/ EOTech is preferable. Instead of limiting the Aimpoint 3x magnifier to CANSOFCOM (http://www.casr.ca/doc-npp-cansofcom-mount.htm), let's make it general issue on all C8A3s. The barrel is heavy enough that there will be minimal accuracy difference, and with the 3x mount, the EOTech has just become a short to medium range sight, so the Army (or infantry at least) only has to carry one gun.
- US Coast Guard Naval Boarding Parties (LEDETs) carry the MK18 CQBR, which is a M4 with a 10.3-in barrel and Aimpoint. Most of the time spent below decks or in the trainer, Canadian NBP's C8s get slung because they are too long, and a 8-round SIG is a poor substitute. Some carry MP5s, but Command doesn't want to lose the longer-range punch...so lets get 10.5-in C8s with EOTechs and we'll only have to carry one gun.
- Existing C7A2s can be sent to Base Security, Reserves, Air Force etc., and they'll only have to carry one gun.
As one poster said earlier, we can all be happy with the different variants of the C7/C8 family already available to us. IURs may be an option in the near future, as well as full quad-rail setups (The TRIAD mount came about because of a lack of budget. They wanted the full quad-rail setup, and there wasn't enough money, so it was the TRIAD or nothing. Yes it sucks and makes the rifle front-heavy. Is it better than nothing? Probably.), and perhaps a C9 replacement along the lines of the USMC M27 IAR. Fitted with an ELCAN and a drum mag, it can do the same job lighter.
Bottom line is, once again instead of looking at common-sense solutions for the guys on the ground, the direction is to spend insane $$$ on things that look modern and flashy and awesome, because we are so desperate to overturn our West-Edmonton-mall-submarines image that instead of being too far in the past, we are now too far in the future.
- US Coast Guard Naval Boarding Parties (LEDETs) carry the MK18 CQBR, which is a M4 with a 10.3-in barrel and Aimpoint. Most of the time spent below decks or in the trainer, Canadian NBP's C8s get slung because they are too long, and a 8-round SIG is a poor substitute. Some carry MP5s, but Command doesn't want to lose the longer-range punch...so lets get 10.5-in C8s with EOTechs and we'll only have to carry one gun.
- Existing C7A2s can be sent to Base Security, Reserves, Air Force etc., and they'll only have to carry one gun.
As one poster said earlier, we can all be happy with the different variants of the C7/C8 family already available to us. IURs may be an option in the near future, as well as full quad-rail setups (The TRIAD mount came about because of a lack of budget. They wanted the full quad-rail setup, and there wasn't enough money, so it was the TRIAD or nothing. Yes it sucks and makes the rifle front-heavy. Is it better than nothing? Probably.), and perhaps a C9 replacement along the lines of the USMC M27 IAR. Fitted with an ELCAN and a drum mag, it can do the same job lighter.
Bottom line is, once again instead of looking at common-sense solutions for the guys on the ground, the direction is to spend insane $$$ on things that look modern and flashy and awesome, because we are so desperate to overturn our West-Edmonton-mall-submarines image that instead of being too far in the past, we are now too far in the future.
I have had many conversations with fellow soldiers during my years of service regarding switching to shorter barreled rifles,
getting better optics, trying different ammo, using modular load carrying equipment and so forth. With the exception of 3
soldiers I talked to and actually agreed with me, the other replies I got were absolute nonsense. I was treated to the old
"20 inch barrels are optimal and all we need because the pam says so", who's going to tell you how to set up your load
carrying stuff so you all look the same, why would you want a different scope are you trying out for the rifle team or
something, we can't switch ammo because it's against the Geneva Convention ( i told him it's Hague Declaration which
really set him off ), plus alot of indifference and you're not combat arms so stfu.... Thankfully I own my own guns
and gear and enjoy firing and using both as often as possible.
getting better optics, trying different ammo, using modular load carrying equipment and so forth. With the exception of 3
soldiers I talked to and actually agreed with me, the other replies I got were absolute nonsense. I was treated to the old
"20 inch barrels are optimal and all we need because the pam says so", who's going to tell you how to set up your load
carrying stuff so you all look the same, why would you want a different scope are you trying out for the rifle team or
something, we can't switch ammo because it's against the Geneva Convention ( i told him it's Hague Declaration which
really set him off ), plus alot of indifference and you're not combat arms so stfu.... Thankfully I own my own guns
and gear and enjoy firing and using both as often as possible.
Bahahah! Glad to see someone else tried pointing this out too. I got the pleasure of "rucksack fast march round our tent line" for that one (still smiled while I did it, I knew I was right).
Understandably so. Maybe the copy of the Geneva Conventions you read had some pages stuck together.
htZZZZZZZZZtps://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Basic rules
- Article 35 [ Link ] -- Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
A quality bullet is not intended to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, it is intended to kill the target. The Hague declaration bans ammo designed to expand (read as ammo suitable for police use).
I have talked with a large number of soldiers who think JHP or HPBT ammo is inhumane and should be illegal while seeing nothing wrong with chucking 155 rounds into urban centers (I classify them as idiots).
I have talked with a large number of soldiers who think JHP or HPBT ammo is inhumane and should be illegal while seeing nothing wrong with chucking 155 rounds into urban centers (I classify them as idiots).
Last edited:
Problems as I see it across the board in government, it that consensus ends up to be group think.
I know a lot of folks in the CF, and DND, most of them are hard working, and a great deal of them are extremely bright. Part of the issues is they are compartmentalized - and this issue occurs down south as well - so a systemic approach to the fighting soldier and sub-unit is missed -- its talked about in doctrine, but never actually studied.
However I will say that on the Armor/Helmet issue - is that protection is taking a lead over fightability. At the end of the day the soldier has a dangerous task, some of the gear designed to enable and protect him ends up being to his detriment.
The other issue seems to be the inane Made in Canada aspect - if a more applicable item is made in an allied country - buy it, or license it (and don't do an Bombardier Iltis switch-a-roo with the item).
LVSW - everything wrong with Canadian procurement can be shown in that program - WTF was it -- it sucked on hi-way, and it was a total no-go off highway (and love the squealing brakes...)
I think Colt Canada is a great company -- my issue with them (as while we partner on somethings we compete on others) is that when Colt bought Diemaco, the new Colt Canada retained the Right of First Refusal on CF Small Arms -- IMHO the Canadian Government if they wanted to retain a vital strategic small arms industry should have bought it - and re-opened it as Canadian Arsenals (take II
Secondly on trials -- a number of former CF folks here on the board, can tell you that when a trial was undertaken, quite often troop feedback was ignored - or downright refused. Partial example where some of the C7A2 upgrades - folks may remember myself and a few others describing that issue.
1) Feedback was rebutted using R22eR feedback - saying the snagging handle, Ambo Mag Release (with less purchase than the original Norgon) and others where well accepted during trials with the Vandoo's --
a) apparently the idea of wearing dummy mitts with a cord thru it to shake off upon the needs to use weapons and then use the anti-contact gloves was not thought of.
b) talking to folks in 3R22eR - they used the Support Company (mechanics, truckers, cooks etc) to do the testing.
TRIAD - pitchfork of doom has cost the CF a lot more than if they had bought M4/M5 RAS from KAC even at a commercial price -- I had posted years ago the memo that was sent out to rebutt CF members who where using RAS on CF weapons for trials, but could not use them at parent units (safety...) and the claim was that the RAS was going to cost $800 a pop -- when the commercial retail price was under $400...
Boots -- boot trial was utterly flawed - as 1 company had troops issued 1 of the various new boots -- how can they compare the other new options?
ELCAN sight - and here I can really get going -- the concept was simply to increase troops range scores, no thought into the close battle, but the belief from year of the Cold War was that we would be picking off Russians at 400-500m, and thus that was the focus.
IIRC most units got issued C7A1's in the 1994 timeframe - there have been a number of weapons "upgrades" since then - but no new optics trial
- also the lack of a real rail still plagues the CF - want to mount a II or Thermal sight to a C7/C8 -- not happening.
Frankly I think the easiest CoA for the CF on weapons is to issue the C8IUR - and then hold an optic and accessory trial.
The fact that all troops don't have NOD's and PEQ's is basically criminal.
I'm in in total agreement with you wrt the Helmet/Armour set up. That damn collar and the helmet made shooting from the prone a pain in the ass. The way the armour constrained you from moving was also another kick in the teeth (though I will say that it made for great field naps if you could get a large rock to prop you up; the armour just kinda enveloped you in a nice warm tight hug that kept you rigid and made napping easier, lol).
Triad Mount: *shudder* thing was a disgrace. I ended up never using the thing and mounting my Peq-4 on a procured section of railing that I mounting to the top handguard.
WRT "basically criminal" things in the CF: The inability to supply boots to everyone on initial issue.
![-[Crosshair]-](/forum/data/avatars/m/31/31565.jpg?1718745216){kind=avatar}
Anybody remember the CADPAT boots? Now we have brown boots that tear within a month and we're getting new ones again. Very glad I kept my black boots but I can't keep them forever and everybody else is buying up all the extra pairs at surplus stores...
I dunno, but I'm assuming that the fugly prototype on the OP is just a mashup of ideas that are being developed by Diemaco and that like the "cars of the future" that used to be popular at auto shows, it's not really a serious attempt at a workable weapon. Such developmental versions as I've seen from Colt Canada in the past were sensibly based on the C7 platform and I would be confident that whatever developments that come out of the ergonomic nightmare seen in the original press release will appear there.
I miss these
Aah yes, the unpolishable boot. The best you could do was using clear wax.
