Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,760
- Points
- 1,160
Pfft, as I fix bayonets on my Snider....I've still got my Martini-Henry.
Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?
- Thread starter MilEME09
- Start date
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,609
- Points
- 1,160
I have two (rusty) bayonets for my Martini-Henry. Unfortunately I'm one of those people who takes out his rifles once per decade to clean them. For five years we lived next to a lake. A lot of this got stressed.
I only keep them for nostalgia. I used to go shooting with my uncle about a half century ago and unfortunately he passed quite some time back. Since then all my range work has been with the army and that too ended some time back although I did get a chance to put some rounds down range a few times with a C-7. I preferred my FNC1 but my weapon of choice is still the M109A4+.
Ah, well!
- Reaction score
- 6,712
- Points
- 1,160
Do you reload for it? The .577/450 is the only one of mine I don't shoot. I used the last shells I had well past the point of usefulness.I've still got my Martini-Henry.
Never mind. Just saw your post above.
- Reaction score
- 6,712
- Points
- 1,160
Does anyone know what the decibel reading is with the suppressor?
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,609
- Points
- 1,160
I have five live rounds. They are newer manufacture - pre 1965 - but drawn not spiral wrapped brass. What I'd like to do is "demilitarize" two of them. The other three I'll give up to have that done.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,025
- Points
- 1,210
So there's a 3rd component not being talked about. Ammunition, a new ball round is being tested to give these carbine the same ballistics as a full rifle. IE a 300m to 400m effective range coming from an 11" or 14" barrel.
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,208
- Points
- 810
Info on the new C77A2 ( I think I saw it designated as the A2?) round has been sparse when I have looked but it seems to be a M855A1.
GD-OTS is showing it as 5.56 IP (Improved Performance) .
GD-OTS is showing it as 5.56 IP (Improved Performance) .
- Reaction score
- 22,783
- Points
- 1,260
M855A1 has an exposed steel tip - the 5.56mm IP literature you posted suggests the copper jacket covers the entire projectile and has a steel core penetrator below like M855/C77.
M855A1 doesn’t have the same trajectory as M855 either.
Curious.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,760
- Points
- 1,160
Kevin in case you did not see this, 4200 fps
For when you need to kill a target retroactively?
- Reaction score
- 22,783
- Points
- 1,260
@Fabius Doing a little bit of digging - I think that the C77A2 may be a Mk318 Mod 1 SOST type.
- sorry @Remius I actually had tagged you by accident in this before realizing that it was Fab that was talking about that -- I got my IUS's mixed up.
I got distracted above - and meant to post some M855A1 images
below
The two piece construction is visually observable.
Also the difference in recoil is also noticeable from M855, Mk262, Mk318 and a few other types of issue ammo.
Last edited:
Fabius
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,208
- Points
- 810
I saw a presentation today that seems to indicate that the CA is looking for a 1 MOA accuracy standard with the new C8A4 and CMAR. They are looking at accuracy trials between 11 and 14.5 inch barrels.
The thinking is to increase precision to increase individual hit ratios at max effective range and possibly extend that max effective range.
I will be interested to see if they can effectively marry up the technical capabilities of rifle, ammunition and optic with training to achieve the actual capability vs just mechanical capability in a test environment.
It would be interesting to see what the change in hit ratio or PWT scores are with a 1 MOA technical capability compared with current 2-4 MOA technical capability given the same level of soldier proficiency.
The thinking is to increase precision to increase individual hit ratios at max effective range and possibly extend that max effective range.
I will be interested to see if they can effectively marry up the technical capabilities of rifle, ammunition and optic with training to achieve the actual capability vs just mechanical capability in a test environment.
It would be interesting to see what the change in hit ratio or PWT scores are with a 1 MOA technical capability compared with current 2-4 MOA technical capability given the same level of soldier proficiency.
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,099
- Points
- 760
Eaglelord17
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,257
- Points
- 1,040
I am not sure having a 1 moa rifle vs a 2-4 moa rifle is really going to change much. Most shooters cannot shoot 1 moa consistently if they wanted to in controlled settings, let alone the field.
Most modern rifles are already 1 moa or pretty close to it. Even most historical rifles, provided you feed them good ammo can hold 1” groups at 100m if the rifle itself is in good shape. I used to shoot 1-2” groups regularly on a range with a surplus C8 upper I had prior to it being banned, it really wasn’t hard to do and that was with iron sights.
What will matter most at this point isn’t even what they do to the rifle itself as it is already pretty good, rather the optic choice they make. Then the training choices after that.
- Reaction score
- 22,783
- Points
- 1,260
The issue with precision of a system being viewed as individual aspects as opposed to a sum that is effectively tolerance stacking is missed so often.
Carbine = 1MOA
Ammo = 1 MOA
Shooter = ?
Notice I didn’t put optic into the above? The optic doesn’t actually affect the precision of the system (unless it’s broken, but we will ignore that for now). The optic allows the shooter to see the target better and/or faster - allowing for better accuracy (note precision isn’t accuracy either).
So in the above:
Carbine is physically capable of placing rounds within a .5” of the target point
Ammo is capable of .5” around the target point.
Here is where tolerance stacking comes to play.
Round 1: leaves the carbine perfectly but is .5” low due to being slightly lower than average on muzzle velocity. (Net Low 1/2”)
Round 2: is left .25” and up .25” from the carbine but right .5” from ammo (Net R 1/2” High 1/2”)
Round 3: is right .1” and low .3 from the gun, and right .5 and high .3 from ammo (Net R .6”)
Round 4: is High .5 from the gun, and high .5 from the ammo (Net High 1”)
— that is all before factoring in the shooter.
FWIW AMR (Average Mean Radius) is a much better method of measuring ammunition precision as well as carbines and rifles than MOA (not sniper rifles - but that is another topic).
Carbine = 1MOA
Ammo = 1 MOA
Shooter = ?
Notice I didn’t put optic into the above? The optic doesn’t actually affect the precision of the system (unless it’s broken, but we will ignore that for now). The optic allows the shooter to see the target better and/or faster - allowing for better accuracy (note precision isn’t accuracy either).
So in the above:
Carbine is physically capable of placing rounds within a .5” of the target point
Ammo is capable of .5” around the target point.
Here is where tolerance stacking comes to play.
Round 1: leaves the carbine perfectly but is .5” low due to being slightly lower than average on muzzle velocity. (Net Low 1/2”)
Round 2: is left .25” and up .25” from the carbine but right .5” from ammo (Net R 1/2” High 1/2”)
Round 3: is right .1” and low .3 from the gun, and right .5 and high .3 from ammo (Net R .6”)
Round 4: is High .5 from the gun, and high .5 from the ammo (Net High 1”)
— that is all before factoring in the shooter.
FWIW AMR (Average Mean Radius) is a much better method of measuring ammunition precision as well as carbines and rifles than MOA (not sniper rifles - but that is another topic).
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 12,665
- Points
- 1,260
It sounds like the Army doesn't realize shooting is as much about the shooter as it is the rifle.
This sounds to me like it has some strange undercurrent of having to buy less bullets.
- Reaction score
- 1,648
- Points
- 1,160
If you view the Ukranian Army clearing trench systems, what is more important?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,760
- Points
- 1,160
Also if making better ammo means you might make 100,000 per machine per day as opposed to ammo that has slightly larger tolerances at 200,000 per machine per day, that effects how much ammo you receive.
Also do you want a match like chamber, or one that will take the ammunition with larger tolerances with greater reliability? Everything is a tradeoff.
Also do you want a match like chamber, or one that will take the ammunition with larger tolerances with greater reliability? Everything is a tradeoff.
- Reaction score
- 22,783
- Points
- 1,260
Yes and no, a better ammo/weapon combo will serve all shooters better as you have reduced one area of error.
BUT
The shooter is generally always the point of failure in the chain, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But I would suggest that the training system then be striving for a better shooter over a bunch of combat applicable shooting positions.
Well I would suggest that being able to quickly incapacitate a foe is the goal regardless - and in trenches one doesn't always get much of a target and the exposure times are often very limited --
Better ammo is hard to quantify in that respect - as when one looks at newer 5.56mm projectiles, they are more accurate than the SS109/C77/M855 bullet and more terminally effective due to the construction, but the production isn't affected.
The Colt Canada C8/C7 barrel is SubMoA capable already even with the 5.56mm Carbine chamber.
The bigger thing that IMHO the CA should be looking at is, with a suppressor, does the 11.5" C8CQB offer better gun handling in confines expected on the battlefield than the 14.5" or 16" C8 barrel lengths (which I think is a pretty obvious yes).
There have been a bunch of 5.56mm ammunition improvements made recently that should be of interest to DLR folks in Canada -
