C7 replacement
- Thread starter shreenan
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Snaketnk said:
Seen, and I wasn't equating the two (I'm old enough to have used both and well aware of the major differences 8)) just pointing out if we start down a potential slippery slope of "smaller= good" it may not go where we want. Add in the Good Idea Fairies at Disneyland on the Rideau all seeking that "Leading Change" bit for their PERs and you could all end up carying 9mm Brownings as your primary wpn ;D
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The argument for smaller/lighter/more handy weapons was answered by FN back in the 1990's with the P-90 PDW (and complimentary FiveSeven pistol). To date the major adopter of the system seems to be the SG-1 teams on TV, and even they are clearly using the weapon in an offensive capacity 
.
Clearly the arguments about veh drivers, veh crewmen, artillery crews etc. not needing a full length rifle don't seem to have had as much water as the presenters thought.
.Clearly the arguments about veh drivers, veh crewmen, artillery crews etc. not needing a full length rifle don't seem to have had as much water as the presenters thought.
Arctic Acorn
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 230
Redeye said:
If it doesn't have an attachment for shooting down police helicopters I'm not interested.
Not that need it...yet. 8)
Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
Unless I'm really off the mark here, at 300 the dot in the center of an EOTech should only span a snitch over 3 inches of the target. It's a 1MOA dot, unless the CF has brought in EOTechs with a different reticule pattern?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
A nominal 1 MOA dot may appear considerably larger due to blooming if the brightness is turned up. When zeroing an EOTech I tend to turn the brightness down as much as possible but in use I'll leave it a bit brighter to account for having to aim into brighter areas.
Just my 2¢
Just my 2¢
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
If you are going to change the service rifle, the first thing you need to ask and answer is "why?".
We might decide we need to because our rifles are worn out and rebuilding them or ordering new builds are no longer practical (not really the case here)
We might need to replace them to be compatable with a new NATO standard (hence the switch from 7.62X51 FN-C1 Battle Rifles to the 5.56X45 C-7 Assault Rifle). This is certainly not a near term prospect.
We might want a new "form factor" to allow troops to work under different conditions. Bullpup rifles were a popular idea to provide mechanized/airmobile troops compact weapons with full lenght barrels in the 1980's, but carabine length weapons like the C8 and M-4 loaded with improved ammunition can provide the same perfomance
We might want or need to change calibre to deal with evolving threats (various efforts like 6.5 and 6.8mm rounds offer theoretical benefits, but at the cost of rebarreling every rifle and LMG, buying new ammunition stocks etc.)
We might decide new technologies offer far superior performance. Telescoped rounds like LSAT offer superior weight and packaging efficiencies without compromising ballistic performance, or we might decide that explosive rounds like the 25mm M-25 and the OCSW project are more suitable for future combat. Ultimatley we will probably get both compact weapons using something like LSAT, backed by support weapons firing programmable explosive munitions.
I don't see the FN SCAR offering anything like these features and benefits (nor the HK 416/417 series), and stand by my prediction upthread that the C7 will continue to evolve and serve for decades to come.
We might decide we need to because our rifles are worn out and rebuilding them or ordering new builds are no longer practical (not really the case here)
We might need to replace them to be compatable with a new NATO standard (hence the switch from 7.62X51 FN-C1 Battle Rifles to the 5.56X45 C-7 Assault Rifle). This is certainly not a near term prospect.
We might want a new "form factor" to allow troops to work under different conditions. Bullpup rifles were a popular idea to provide mechanized/airmobile troops compact weapons with full lenght barrels in the 1980's, but carabine length weapons like the C8 and M-4 loaded with improved ammunition can provide the same perfomance
We might want or need to change calibre to deal with evolving threats (various efforts like 6.5 and 6.8mm rounds offer theoretical benefits, but at the cost of rebarreling every rifle and LMG, buying new ammunition stocks etc.)
We might decide new technologies offer far superior performance. Telescoped rounds like LSAT offer superior weight and packaging efficiencies without compromising ballistic performance, or we might decide that explosive rounds like the 25mm M-25 and the OCSW project are more suitable for future combat. Ultimatley we will probably get both compact weapons using something like LSAT, backed by support weapons firing programmable explosive munitions.
I don't see the FN SCAR offering anything like these features and benefits (nor the HK 416/417 series), and stand by my prediction upthread that the C7 will continue to evolve and serve for decades to come.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Our current service rifle is light, reliable and with the new additions relatively ergonomic. My beef with it is the length of the barrel, and the hand guards/lack of a rail system. I will gladly give up 200fps of muzzle velocity for the ease of use in vehicles, urban environments and general handling. Furthermore if all the rifles are the same then you don't have to worry about having different spare parts in the system.
I'm sorry but the majority of the people that want an EOtech want it for the LCF as oppose to close up engagements.
My second point being the rail system. I have had to go out and get my own, because refuse to put a PEQ2 and a flashlight on the tri-mount they issued me. It would make my rifle twice as wide and put the balance of it way out to the front increasing user fatigue.
I see the argument of adopting the HK416, it is more reliable then the M16 family and easier to clean and maintain, all the while its very similar so not very much re-training required however,
Thucydides has some very valid points.
I will try to simplify. Do we needa new rifle right now or the near foreseeable future?
Or are people just wanting the new "toy" for the sake of having it?
I'm sorry but the majority of the people that want an EOtech want it for the LCF as oppose to close up engagements.
My second point being the rail system. I have had to go out and get my own, because refuse to put a PEQ2 and a flashlight on the tri-mount they issued me. It would make my rifle twice as wide and put the balance of it way out to the front increasing user fatigue.
I see the argument of adopting the HK416, it is more reliable then the M16 family and easier to clean and maintain, all the while its very similar so not very much re-training required however,
Thucydides has some very valid points.
I will try to simplify. Do we needa new rifle right now or the near foreseeable future?
Or are people just wanting the new "toy" for the sake of having it?
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
The next "evolution" will probably be a replacement of the handguards with ones mounting rail systems.
After that the best follow on product would be a new sight. A day/night or even a day/night/thermal sight would be quite beneficial, and a sight that incorporated laser rangefinding and a ballistic computer for rifle and underslung grenade launcher rounds would also do nicely. Back in the late 1980's there was a prototype sight called "CLASS" which incorporated day/night vision and a rangefinder with ballistic computer, but that was for GPMG, HMG, 84mm and automatic grenade launchers. With modern technology, this sort of sight could be replicated today with better packaging and lower expense (although the way things are bought by the Government that is probably wishful thinking).
After that the best follow on product would be a new sight. A day/night or even a day/night/thermal sight would be quite beneficial, and a sight that incorporated laser rangefinding and a ballistic computer for rifle and underslung grenade launcher rounds would also do nicely. Back in the late 1980's there was a prototype sight called "CLASS" which incorporated day/night vision and a rangefinder with ballistic computer, but that was for GPMG, HMG, 84mm and automatic grenade launchers. With modern technology, this sort of sight could be replicated today with better packaging and lower expense (although the way things are bought by the Government that is probably wishful thinking).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
As much as I'd love to have those features, I think for Rifleman #3 many of them might not be worth their weight. Also: Batteries. We had enough trouble keeping NVGs, Surefires and PEQs running without adding thermal/night sights and LRFs to all our weapons. The Elcan is a good sight, I dislike the reticle inside, and it has a couple of durability issues. Yes, it does weigh a bit but every person in a section having a 3.4x optic is extraordinarily useful in all kinds of conflict except extreme UO scenarios.
But seriously, just give rifle sections C8s with rail fore ends... All C7s do is get caught up on everything and fatigue soldiers.
But seriously, just give rifle sections C8s with rail fore ends... All C7s do is get caught up on everything and fatigue soldiers.
MedCorps
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 86
- Points
- 330
Before we replace the C7 / C8 we will be undergoing the Small Arms Modernization (SAM) project. The project should be fully defined by March of this year and then procurement for the entire project (Upgrades: C7/C8, ammo, accessories, C6, C9 (maybe). Replace: pistol, Ranger rifle, M203, .50 Cal. Procure: weapons accessories, weapon sight, sharpshooter capability, reduced weight ammunition) will be completed FY 19/20.
The SAM project slated to "fix" many of the issues that users are concerned about with the C7 / C8. For the C7/C8 these include (as of the last briefing I attended before Christmas), a rail system, new rear sling attachment, change to the cocking handle, an issued back up sight, some sort of camouflage system (although I do not know exactly what this is). They also mentioned that they were going to investigate with users (starting with 1 and 3 RCR) / industry the option of adding a power rail / battery system.
There is also a line within SAM to procure a whole line weapons accessories, many of them for the C7 / C8 (new slings, magazines, laser aiming devices, cleaning kits, collimators, and suppressors for "specialists (and I do not think they mean orthopedic surgeons in this case)
Finally, the SAM project is also going to procure a new weapons sight. A combined close quarter / magnification sight with maybe a new reticle. The picture on the ppt slide (which was for illustration purposes only) had what looked like a ACOG sight, with a mini EO tech on top. Not sure if this exists or was a Photoshop.
The C7/C8 will then be replaced in the Next Generation Small Arms (NGSA) Project. This will have project definition (not procurement) in 2017-2020, with research on new technology occurring from now to 2017 as part of the NGSA. Once a new weapon system is procured between 2020 and 2026 the C7/C8 will be divested. So it looks like we will have it for awhile.
There is also one other small arms project in the works. The Special Weapons and Ammunition (SWA) Project. It has for procurement between 2017 and 2022 a small inventory of foreign weapons, a breaching weapon (including ammunition varieties and doctrine for the shotgun), a personal defense weapon (and old concept which died some time ago but will be brought back to life) and a modernization / replacement for navy boarding party weapons.
I hope that is of some interest to you guys,
MC
The SAM project slated to "fix" many of the issues that users are concerned about with the C7 / C8. For the C7/C8 these include (as of the last briefing I attended before Christmas), a rail system, new rear sling attachment, change to the cocking handle, an issued back up sight, some sort of camouflage system (although I do not know exactly what this is). They also mentioned that they were going to investigate with users (starting with 1 and 3 RCR) / industry the option of adding a power rail / battery system.
There is also a line within SAM to procure a whole line weapons accessories, many of them for the C7 / C8 (new slings, magazines, laser aiming devices, cleaning kits, collimators, and suppressors for "specialists (and I do not think they mean orthopedic surgeons in this case
) Finally, the SAM project is also going to procure a new weapons sight. A combined close quarter / magnification sight with maybe a new reticle. The picture on the ppt slide (which was for illustration purposes only) had what looked like a ACOG sight, with a mini EO tech on top. Not sure if this exists or was a Photoshop.
The C7/C8 will then be replaced in the Next Generation Small Arms (NGSA) Project. This will have project definition (not procurement) in 2017-2020, with research on new technology occurring from now to 2017 as part of the NGSA. Once a new weapon system is procured between 2020 and 2026 the C7/C8 will be divested. So it looks like we will have it for awhile.
There is also one other small arms project in the works. The Special Weapons and Ammunition (SWA) Project. It has for procurement between 2017 and 2022 a small inventory of foreign weapons, a breaching weapon (including ammunition varieties and doctrine for the shotgun), a personal defense weapon (and old concept which died some time ago but will be brought back to life) and a modernization / replacement for navy boarding party weapons.
I hope that is of some interest to you guys,
MC
- Reaction score
- 3,714
- Points
- 1,160
Great info, hopefully the fixes for the C7/C8 are done before FY 19/20.
Sounds like the ACOG with Dr. Optic mounted on top for close quarters. It certainly exists. Never shot it though. Interesting to hear.
Thanks for the fantastic post, MedCorps. Mind if I ask where you're getting this from? Purely to satisfy my curiosity.
Thanks for the fantastic post, MedCorps. Mind if I ask where you're getting this from? Purely to satisfy my curiosity.
