Topic: C7 replacement

[shreenan]

What will be the next service rifle? any ideas

[Thucydides]

I doubt we will see anything to replace the C7 family for decades to come; the service rifle concept has reached most practical limits (the training and fortitude of the shooter is the determining factor in rife accuracy and pK these days).

If there is going to be a "replacement" we will probably see a C-7 A3 and A4, incorporating ruggedized parts, lighter weight components and changes to the stock and furnature to make the weapon more ergonomic, combined with vastly imnproves sights (including day/night or even thermal sights). After that, advances in technology and manufacturing wil make weapons like the XM-25 affordable for the infantryman, but we are probably looking 20 years into the future for an affordable m-25 type weapon and ammunition on the scale of individual issue.

A safe prediction wil be a support weapon patterned after the M-25 to suppliment the C-9 or M-203 much sooner.

[shreenan]

Nice thanks for the input!

[Danjanou]

What will be the next service rifle? any ideas

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.




Oh come on someone was going to say it eventually 

[Paul_Ontario]

Haha 

[marshall sl]

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.




Oh come on someone was going to say it eventually 

Hey,
just what you see, pal!

[Snaketnk]

Personally, I say phase out the C7, make C8A3s with an RIS on the front the new general issue weapon. All everyone does is ***** and whine so they can get a C8 anyway.

[Tango18A]

There is no way a clerk requires a C8A3 to do any of their duties. Unless that is what their Sqn has issued them, but unless you are part of an "A" veh crew there is little requirement of the LCF of a carbine.

[Loachman]

Is there any way that clerks need full-length rifles to do any of their duties?

Is there any reason not to make the C8 "the new general issue weapon" as Snaketnk suggested?

[Infanteer]

Personally, I say phase out the C7, make C8A3s with an RIS on the front the new general issue weapon. All everyone does is ***** and whine so they can get a C8 anyway.

Agreed.  As I've argued elsewhere here, studies seem to indicate that the Rifle, in a firefight, is not really effective at anything.  If we accept this data, then the Rifle is a personal defence weapon to keep the real killers, the crew served weapons, rocking.

Anything that makes personal defence at the 100m or less range a bit easier is good in my books.

[Danjanou]

Agreed.  As I've argued elsewhere here, studies seem to indicate that the Rifle, in a firefight, is not really effective at anything.  If we accept this data, then the Rifle is a personal defence weapon to keep the real killers, the crew served weapons, rocking.

Anything that makes personal defence at the 100m or less range a bit easier is good in my books.

Or this was a serious thread...oops

Posting from work so no easy access to my reference library, so I may be wrong here, but didn't the IDF go this route in the 1960's replacing large numbers of their older WW2 vintage rifles and FN varients in Infantry units with SMGs under the principle they were only needed to protect hte crew served weapons (HMGS, Mortars, AT etc)? As I remeber they quickly developed the Galil soon after.

[Snaketnk]

As true as that may be; equating the C8 to an SMG isn't exactly fair. The disparity in effective range is immense.

Whereas the effective ranges of the C7 ad C8 are practically the same in my experience.

[GhostofJacK]

Personally, I say phase out the C7, make C8A3s with an RIS on the front the new general issue weapon. All everyone does is ***** and whine so they can get a C8 anyway.

C8A3 is standard issue with an EOTECH. Although it does meet the '100m or less' that Infanteer suggested, I personally do not like the accuracy of a holosight for things at that 100m. Decreasing the range of service rifles would significantly change the infantry doctrine which would then also:

-Need changes to all doctrine PAMs (equals $$$)
-Retrain up all infantry on new SOPs (equals $$$)

Therefore, would the cost of 'replacing all sercive rifles with the A3' be much larger once you consider those things?

[Snaketnk]

I wasn't aware the A3s came with EOTechs. I think we should remain with a magnified optic (it's just too damn useful to ditch). Honestly, I've never seen A3s go through our stores. I've only ever seen MPs with them.

So, negative on changing the sights, or the PAMs, or the SOPs... just the rifle.

[Nerf herder]

C8A3 is standard issue with an EOTECH. Although it does meet the '100m or less' that Infanteer suggested, I personally do not like the accuracy of a holosight for things at that 100m.

Don't know about your weapon, but my C8A3HB could hit the center of mass at 300m.

Mind you the dot took up the entire center of mass.

Regards

[Redeye]

Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.




Oh come on someone was going to say it eventually 

I adrep one for myself before EVERY exercise. And I will keep doing so until I get one.

"Only what you see, pal!"

[rmc_wannabe]

Don't know if this has been thought of, but maybe a bolt mechanism with a little more fault tolerance in harsher climates? (extreme cold, dry, sandy areas, etc.)

The C7(8A,1,2,3,abcdefg Mitten) family bolt system and I have come to hate one another due to its tendancy to jam when it isn't optimal firing  conditions (i.e. a nice balmy 26 degree day, with no sand or moisture to be heard of). Perhaps something that can work well up North as well as in a desert?

Just my 

[a Sig Op]

There's bit and pieces on the market to increase the reliability of the AR-15 family, for both the rifle, and the magazine... some of good quality, some of terrible quality.... all stuff that could be integrated into an A4 model, some already in use but not "standardized"

[Snaketnk]

Magpul E-Mags? 16$ a pop and they worked great in Afghanistan... Most of the stoppages I witnessed were a result of dust collecting inside the mags.

[Tommy]

There is no way a clerk requires a C8A3 to do any of their duties. Unless that is what their Sqn has issued them, but unless you are part of an "A" veh crew there is little requirement of the LCF of a carbine.

The "B" Veh crews could use em just as much.... I had a hell of a time trying to get my C7A2 in and out of an HLVW when I was over there... When I did have a C8 on Swamper duties I found it to be a lot easier to use in, out, and around the vehicle, and would take it over a pistol any day....

I think the general thought should be that if you are Mech, a C8 (esp the new C8A3) would be a very useful piece of kit to have.

[a Sig Op]

Magpul E-Mags? 16$ a pop and they worked great in Afghanistan... Most of the stoppages I witnessed were a result of dust collecting inside the mags.

Could upgrade the springs and followers in all existing mags for about $2 a mag.  Then replace as required with improved mags.

[Pusser]

I'll say it.  I miss the FN C1A1.  If you ran out of bullets, you still had a pretty hefty club.

[Danjanou]

As true as that may be; equating the C8 to an SMG isn't exactly fair. The disparity in effective range is immense.

Whereas the effective ranges of the C7 ad C8 are practically the same in my experience.

Seen, and I wasn't equating the two (I'm old enough to have used both and well aware of the major differences  ) 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

[Haletown]

I would think it is more not what Canada wants to do WRT small arms/infantry weapons but what the US Army will do.

And they can't seem to make up their minds.

Yet.

[Thucydides]

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.