Why not use US military weapons, we use their jets, GPS etc? Sounds like another Harper backed loser!

Beats me why they want the man standing behind the gun with his eye to the sight. Surely they can make a gun with an LCD screen and a 6 foot cable and servo controls so it can be aimed and fired from a foxhole or behind a wall? = far safer. Of course, needs fine servo controls and good optics

I certainly object to my tax dollars aiding in making a limited quantity set of guns. It is much more economical to buy mass produced US guns than to invent anything for our relatively fewer troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine

Why not US military weapons? This device is not being developed for the US military, but the Canadian armed forces.

So, when do these arrive at Walmart?

Did anyone else note that this weapons is being developed for the Canadian military? Why should they be required to buy US weapons and replacement parts?

Reminds me that phrase "A Camel is a Horse developed under a Committee's instructions !" UGH! Here you are, standing 1 foot tall above cover, trying to handle a cumbersome Monster with more bells and whistles than Inspector Gadget... WHAT could go wrong? LOL

Canada, love my fellow soldiers up there, but they only have 100K active duty anyway. Why not just buy either US tech (not like we are restricting sells to you guys) or other tech from Germany or other NATO members? Why pump money into this when you could spend it else where for defense?

For all the previous commenters who ALL lack the requisite expertise: I am a retired U.S. Army Ordnance officer, from Canada, (Naturalized U.S.) and have actual experience developing new ideas into actual products. It is important that Canada continue it's development & design efforts. The U.S. does not always get it right. Look at the the F22 Raptor and the F35, both have issues, are gigantically expensive and are imagined to be capable of multi-mission everything. They cannot. Specialized aircraft like the A10 Warthog still are far better and far cheaper than a multi-mission aircraft. When it comes to ground troop weapons the picture shifts a bit. Telescoped munitions are an innovation that may well be the next big important innovation, right now the picture is still evolving. If this works out it should mean a weight reduction of something like 30-40%. This has a huge logistical value from the U.S. loading dock all the way to the individual soldier. However, again, this is still evolving technology. The applied electronics are the next major area and the article mentions a NATO system standard for a common electrical and communications "bus". Starting with a common standard is critically important and needs to be applauded. Too many things start out as "white sheet" designs and can easily wind up being incompatible in ways that may not be seen until far too late. Next the materials innovations are just as important. Until you actually try to build something out of a given material or with a new process no one can tell how well it will work out. In designing complex systems testing & measurement are vital. There is a reason why we use two words here : Research & Development. Finally, Canada like many other NATO members is capable of making many contributions useful to all other NATO members. While this weapon, as pictured, seems a bit cumbersome, (Not all multi-mission ideas work out well), keep in mind this current design is a test bed prototype. You cannot just use CAD systems and pretty pictures. You have to actually build stuff and try it out. Canada has every right to build the skills to do this. And, yes, having a government with more skills rather than fewer skills is an excellent use of anyone's tax dollars.