# Rifles for Rangers



## edgar (11 Sep 2007)

Are there any Rangers, or weapons techs who support them on the forum? (Or decision-makers who procure for them, I guess)

This page http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-enfield.htm became a lot more interesting to me when my dad gave me his old enfield. I wonder what the experts think of reconditioning these rifles. My own has rarely been fired but much neglected (remember when rifles just hung there on the wall and nobody thought it strange).

Given that 7.62 is army standard and .303 not so much, would it be cheaper to just buy a new rifle? Or do the different rounds all cost around the same?
Used to be .303 was cheap like borscht but those war surplus crates are long gone.

I need to replace the stock anyway because it was butchered by someone sporty with short arms. It kicks like the proverbial Chuck Norris. is a McMillan-type stock and a weaver rail grafted onto an old but free rifle cheaper than just buying a new .308?

Answers are useful not just for me but for the Rangers as well I hope.

Thanks


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2007)

That article seems to use calibre as a cover excuse to switch to a fiberglass stock.  You'll note that all options suggest fiberglass to cut weight (without mentioning that weight is a problem) while they only give a half effort to push the 7.62 mm (despite that being the only potential concern mentioned).

At the same time, if I had to defend against an angry polar bear (and this is one of the tasks the rifle is used for), I wonder if I would want a 7.62 mm or a .303.


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2007)

ballsitically .308/7.62x51 is the same as .303 Brit and/or 30-06.

  In fact given the current load selection - the .308 will edge the others...


----------



## edgar (11 Sep 2007)

They do seem excited about the fibreglass don't they. Even the academics are vulnerable to shiny kit syndrome eh?

Funny you should mention bears, because that's what my rifle will be for, but I want to make a lot of holes in paper before I go out so cost is more important than any small advantage in ballistics there might be. I will go with .308 though if the cost otherwise ends up being about the same. I'm thinking about a thousand rounds costing more than the rifle, is there any difference between .303 and .308?

Grandpa got by potting Germans with .303 and they are a lot more scary than polar bears, but he probably would have went with 7.62 if he'd had it.


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2007)

Back in the day when you could pick up surplus .303 Brit really cheap - it was a viable round, for fun.  For hunting - people had old "sporterized" versions - and the soft point ammo.  I remember in the early 90's putting 5k of it in the back of my truck I bought in the US and driving it across - I think the GST was about $36 on it...

However a lot of that ammo was corrosive (corrosive primed) and thus unless the bore was srubbed out well (like soap and water well) - it would eat at the barrel and eventually turn it into Ak style accuracy  >.

  IMHO if we consider the Norther and West Coast Rangers a viable entity - we would require to get them a new rifle.  Since they also use their issue rifles for sustanance hunting - it needs to be in a viable hunting calibre - since it is also their dury weapon - it needs to be in a military calibre, .308/7.62 NATO does that.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2007)

Canadian Rangers carry weapons for self-defence against the elements, not for gunning down the enemy de jour (Fantasians, Tartans or Infidel-6es).

They take their weapons home, and are issued ammunition to maintain their proficiency.  That they use their proficiency rounds to hunt is just an added bonus.

There is ongoing examination of Ranger scales of issue, including weapons.  I would suspect that any Ranger Rifle Replacement project will be subsumed into the larger Small Arms Replacement Project II (the original SARP is what got us the C7).  That (hopefully) will result in some degree of commonality.


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2007)

Won't happen.

 The needs of the Army are 100% different than the Rangers.  Secondly no one is going to send home a select fire carbine and a pile of loaded 30 rds mags for the Rangers.  I would suggest anyone trying to shoe horn those projects together has a lack of knowledge of the needs of both elements.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2007)

In theory SARP II will identify a family of weapons for CF use; the Ranger rifle would be part of that family (the red-head bastard stepchild, perhaps, but part of the family just the same).

While there may not be a great deal of commonality between the weapons selected, grafting it on to the program should keep the weapon from becoming an orphan - the fate of too many smaller projects in CF inventories.


I agree that the Rangers will not see a select fire 30 round mag carbine... I think they're holding out for a 40mm auto grenade launcher for use against those devious penguins...




(Yes, I know.  Antarctic vs arctic.  It's a joke...)


----------



## geo (11 Sep 2007)

The CF provides the Lee Enfield & the 303 ammo
The innu and inuit I know, for the most part, don't really use the Enfield unless they really have to.
Their preferred daytime rifle, when hunting seals and small game - 5.56

BTW DAP - Penguins are at the South Pole - not the North Pole


----------



## KevinB (11 Sep 2007)

DAP - roger.

 However I've got a pretty good idea what weapon systems will be looked at.  The only two that I see as having a shot are the Mk17 and HK417 (in semi-auto versions) as those are the big brother 7.62mm versions of the parent system.   

  Yet - the problem with the way Cdn gun laws are implemented those weapons would be a restricted family, and the legal status of the Rangers would be "problematic"

Seeing as the plan is to keep the C3A1 as a .308 T'Wolf trainer -- there is going to need to be support for a .308 bolt gun (additionally I think it would be a logictical nigthmare to equip and train a Ranger unit with a Hk417 (additionally all the city gun nutz and other would be flocking to join  so they could have one too) .


The system approach is nice - however I'd settle for getting the MP-5 out of the inventory as a reduction of supported platforms, - standardize on one "stabdard" issue platform family for the Force - and others as needed (LMG, GPMG, Bolt gun, pistol)

 To reduce the fleet as it is remove all the various shotguns with one model of modular system , surivival rifles, cadet trainers etc with one type of action - but allow for different stock and barrel profile options.


----------



## edgar (11 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> The CF provides the Lee Enfield & the 303 ammo
> The innu and inuit I know, for the most part, don't really use the Enfield unless they really have to.
> Their preferred daytime rifle, when hunting seals and small game - 5.56
> 
> BTW DAP - Penguins are at the South Pole - not the North Pole


Reminds me of the Cornwallis cripplers, CF provides and the only people who actually ran in them didn't have a choice.

Maybe they could purchase for themselves and be reimbursed. I understand in WWII officers could carry any handgun they could get approved by the CO if they bought it themselves. 

For protection against "the elements", if bears are the worst case scenario, a shotgun will do. If you're in the army, and worst case is Russians (sorry, I joined in the eighties), then you want a proper rifle. Enfield used to fill the bill, accurate and long range enough, but above all reliable. CASR seems to share my delusion that the Rangers may have to fight someday, or credibly look like they would. It might be bad for recruiting if word gets out that they are really just some sort of arctic commissionaires. I think giving them the HK417 might be good for recruiting. Speaking of city gun nuts, maybe I should join. Is there a Ranger group dedicated patrolling the wilds of the City of Saskatoon?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2007)

Geo:

Read the fine print in the original comment 

Edgar:

The Roles, Missions and Tasks of the Rangers dictate otherwise.  They sneak and peek - and generally don't have the numbers to do much beyond that.  Not that there aren't occasional local initiatives...


----------



## edgar (11 Sep 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Edgar:
> 
> The Roles, Missions and Tasks of the Rangers dictate otherwise.  They sneak and peek - and generally don't have the numbers to do much beyond that.  Not that there aren't occasional local initiatives...


I think if your sneaking and peeking at soldiers, you might want to have  a weapon you can fight them with, cause they'll be pissed off if they catch you at it. Didn't mean to start an argument there, although a thread on the role of the Rangers would be an interesting read. I'll do a search and if it's not in there maybe we can start one (cause I think Rangers are cool).

This one is a bit more specific. What I want to know is: is it cost effective to recondition the enfields or replace them with a .308?
An underlying assumption is that the enfield meets the need it is issued for and a replacement would fill the same need.


----------



## geo (11 Sep 2007)

Doh!

Done in by the fine print again!


----------



## geo (11 Sep 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> I think if your sneaking and peeking at soldiers, you might want to have  a weapon you can fight them with, cause they'll be pissed off if they catch you at it. Didn't mean to start an argument there, although a thread on the role of the Rangers would be an interesting read. I'll do a search and if it's not in there maybe we can start one (cause I think Rangers are cool).
> 
> This one is a bit more specific. What I want to know is: is it cost effective to recondition the enfields or replace them with a .308?
> An underlying assumption is that the enfield meets the need it is issued for and a replacement would fill the same need.



Edgar,

The CF uses 5.56 for it's main service rifle AND the section MG (C7 & C9) 
so you can sneak & peek - try not to get caught but, if you're in contact, 5.56 works well enoug in the great white north


----------



## MG34 (12 Sep 2007)

I doubt very much the Rangers get a select fire or semi only military carbine/rifle or what have you, after all the bolt action is the only one considered reliable enough for *sustained* operations in that climate (YES I KNOW..BUT THESE AREN'T MY WORDS) and the replacement rifle if any will be a bolt action.  Seeing as the Ruger Mini 14 with a high capacity magazine is the prefferred hunting tool up there most are already equipped with a carbine anyways.


----------



## geo (12 Sep 2007)

All in all, not many rangers use the Enfield.... they have chosen to use something else, purchased weapon local, purchase ammo local and service local.  Retooling the Enfield to another calibre seems to me to be a non-starter.

You want a weapon that is solid, will take a beating and continue to work.  If it breaks, you want them to be able to service it up there.... not ship it down south for fixing - sometime in the future.


----------



## mudgunner49 (12 Sep 2007)

McBros stocks and rebarreling jobs?  For the cost of these two mods the CF could buy all the Rangers a Ruger 77 Frontier with stainless barrel and action and a laminated stock for true all-weather performance, a more compact platform and far better performance overall than the Lee-Enfield.

I agree fully with MG34 that it needs to be a bolt-gun andyou would too if you saw how some of these guys (mis) treat and (mis) use their rifles.  Sporting config semis just would not stand up to the abuse...

Dressing up the current platform is kinda like polishing a turd - it's shiny but still a turd.  Don't get me wrong, the Enfield was fine "back in the day" but time marches on and there are much better options out there.

blake


----------



## geo (12 Sep 2007)

Was talking to one of my former WOs who just left the Rangers.

The one thing they Rangers like about the Enfield is.... the 200 to 300 rounds of free ammo they receive each year
THen again - many ranger dets have umpteen thousands of unused rounds - which tells me that, even if it's free, the rangers might prefer another rifle with another calibre.


----------



## KevinB (12 Sep 2007)

Yeah true - but anyone using 5.56mm on a bear is really needing their head checked.
I've shot people with it - and it works for people - but not big ass bears


----------



## xena (12 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> but not big *** bears


+1
Bears are a bit bigger and capable of more sheer violence than most folks.  Even if you're doing a fancy schmancy sneak and peek on someone, it gets academic if you become a polar bear's _hor d'ourve_.


----------



## mudgunner49 (12 Sep 2007)

I watched one of the Rangers from near Moose Factory shoot a polar bear with a .22-250 - he seem pretty calm but *my* blood pressure was up more than a bit!!  One shot just under the* ear * at about 75 m sure did the trick...


----------



## edgar (14 Sep 2007)

xena said:
			
		

> +1
> Bears are a bit bigger and capable of more sheer violence than most folks.



That's true, but their capability drops off sharply at surprisingly short ranges. If you are letting them inside your Tueller distance with regularity, again I recommend a shotgun. They don't usually wear armour and eight or nine rounds with each trigger pull will maximize your odds of hitting something vital. Until they evolve tool use, complex problem solving, and teamwork, they will remain second place in the food chain. The only significant predation humans suffer is from other people. But if they _did_ have opposeable thumbs, which rifle would _they_ prefer for harvesting tasty rangers?


----------



## xena (14 Sep 2007)

;D  Roger that, edgar, roger that!


----------



## xena (14 Sep 2007)

Though, what I was trying to (probably fairly obtusely!) say was that a weapon that works well against people, might not be the best one for bears.  I was a clerk, so WTF do I know about ballistics 'n' stuff... but from what I remember overhearing in the mess, (usually while drunk mind you), suggested that larger body masses and longer ranges require a bit larger calibre than you might want to use against an enemy soldier in FIBUA (or Urban Warfare, or...  whatever it's called now...  *sigh*  I'm a dinosaur...)

But you're right, until one manages to crack a shot off in return, the tactical threat is limited.  :warstory:

After all, there *is* a reason we _*eat*_ animals for food...    >


----------



## dapaterson (14 Sep 2007)

xena said:
			
		

> suggested that larger body masses and longer ranges require a bit larger calibre than you might want to use against an enemy soldier in FIBUA (or Urban Warfare, or...  whatever it's called now...  *sigh*  I'm a dinosaur...)



I think we went from Fighting In Built-Up Areas (FIBUA) to Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) and today we've got Fighting in Somebody's House (FISH).  Though that last one isn'y quite doctrinal yet  ...


----------



## xena (14 Sep 2007)

"Fighting in Somebody's House (FISH)"

Wait for it.  Probably coming down the pike as we type...   :


----------



## dapaterson (14 Sep 2007)

xena said:
			
		

> "Fighting in Somebody's House (FISH)"
> 
> Wait for it.  Probably coming down the* pike *  as we type...   :



OK, you win the "best/worst" pun of the day...


(edit because I have a near-terminal inability to type...)


----------



## brihard (14 Sep 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> That's true, but their capability drops off sharply at surprisingly short ranges. If you are letting them inside your Tueller distance with regularity, again I recommend a shotgun. They don't usually wear armour and eight or nine rounds with each trigger pull will maximize your odds of hitting something vital. Until they evolve tool use, complex problem solving, and teamwork, they will remain second place in the food chain. The only significant predation humans suffer is from other people. But if they _did_ have opposeable thumbs, which rifle would _they_ prefer for harvesting tasty rangers?



I presume, then, that you're an advocate of the right to arm bears?


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2007)

Its I support the Right to Keep and Arm Bears.

   I used to have a shirt that had that - and a Bear with a Thompson SMG...


----------



## TCBF (14 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Its I support the Right to Keep and Arm Bears.
> 
> I used to have a shirt that had that - and a Bear with a Thompson SMG...



- I STILL have a shirt that says that! (Actually, it doesn't say anything - you have to read it.)

-.303 has recently been made in small lots by IVI using the 'old' 215 grain C-I-L KKSP type bullets - headstamped "303 British IVI" - and issued as Ranger ammo because the Mark VII Ball has liabilities as a hunting round, and the Mark VIII Z Vickers MG cartridge was NEVER intended for Lee Enfields.

- Giving that the original stock of close to ONE MILLION Long Branch No. 4 Mk. I* rifles has dropped off since we adopted the FN C1A1 in 1956, we may soon have to decide on a new bolt gun for the Rangers.

- We COULD give them auto rifles and send them home with them like the Swiss government does with all of their men, but that would set too good of an example for the rest of the country.



- The issue with staying with .303 is that it is no longer made militarily in large quantities, and commercial .303 British has a limited SAAMI spec due to the weakness of older No. 1 Mk. III actions.  If you had a new Remington 700 chambered for .303 (good luck!) you could push that cartridge to 50,000 plus CUP easy, vice maybe the SAAMI spec of about 45,000 CUP.

- But no commercial mfr would load 303 British that hot on the off chance that some fool would take it and cycle it through his SMLE, thus giving the antis an excuse to sic their running dog packs of commie cumbubbles against the gun and ammo mfrs in court.

- Solution?  Military: 308 Winchester in a Savage Stevens 200 or similar low-end bolt gun. Yes, I realize that 7.62 NATO and .308 Win share the same cartridge case but NOT the same SAAMI specs, so the rifle would be built for the hotest commercially or militarily available specs.

- Commercial:  The three most popular calibres in North America are: 30-06, 7mm Rem Mag and .270 Winchester.  The 30-06 has the best selection of projectiles of them all.

- Historical: As a lark: 7.62 X 54R.  Older than the .303, still used today in vast quantities as a Machine Gun cartridge (PKM, PKT etc), MILLIONS of bolt guns (Mosin-Nagant) avail all around the world.   We will be swimming in these long after the last .303 round is ever fired at a moose.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Sep 2007)

What about the AIA M-10 No.4 which MARSTAR is advertising. I personally know two Brisbane based engineers who pioneered the project.

An updated No.4 rifle, and in 7.62mm NATO.

Although this rifle has been re-engineered, many parts do interchange, but not all. All parts on these rifles are new manufacture, as no surplus parts were used.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## TCBF (15 Sep 2007)

Over priced, and why buy a NEW rifle with rear locking lugs?

Lots of stronger and newer bolt guns in more readily available calibres.

Don't get me wrong - I am a big LE fan and have owned a few Long Branches and a No. 5 - but there was rifle Right and Rifle Right Now.  For the Rangers, the Long Branch was Rifle Right Now: over 900.000 produced (plus over 1,000,000 stamped "Property of U.S. Government" at the Stevens plant in Chicopee Falls) and trainloads  of DA Ball for our Enfields, Brens and Vickers already produced. But those days are over.


----------



## geo (15 Sep 2007)

Per my friend who just left the Rangers, there is a considerable number of Enfields.  They won't run out of them in this decade and probably not in the next..... so don't hold your breath.  I don't expect any move on them changing rifles anytime soon.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (15 Sep 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> -.303 has recently been made in small lots by IVI using the 'old' 215 grain C-I-L KKSP type bullets - headstamped "303 British IVI" - and issued as Ranger ammo because the Mark VII Ball has liabilities as a hunting round, and the Mark VIII Z Vickers MG cartridge was NEVER intended for Lee Enfields.



I wish they would sell some of this stuff, I would gleefully kill for it, that would be some good moose medicine.  Would be nice in my chopped "Bear Banger" Lee Enfield too.  I have some original 215 grain C-I-L stuff, but my supplies are running low, and I wouldn't exactly want to bet my life (or my moose steaks) on ammo that old.

Planes


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Sep 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ..... will be subsumed into the larger Small Arms Replacement Project II (the original SARP is what got us the C7).  That (hopefully) will result in some degree of commonality.



What is the status of SARP II?  Where can I find info on it?


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> What is the status of SARP II?  Where can I find info on it?



If you have DIN access, try looking around the ADM(Mat) or DLR websites.  SARP II is a long-term project; don't expect shiny new weapons in the pipeline in the near horizon.


----------



## DirtyDog (17 Sep 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you have DIN access, try looking around the ADM(Mat) or DLR websites.  SARP II is a long-term project; don't expect shiny new weapons in the pipeline in the near horizon.



Roger, thanks.  I guess I was getting a little to hopeful.


----------



## Lantelin (5 Jun 2008)

Hi guys, 
Word from on high in the rangers is that we WILL see a new rifle, but not for a few years yet. I've been a ranger for about 15 years now and have seen this rumor come and go a few times, so i'll believe it when its in my hot little hands. That'll be a sad day tho, I think we're the last military unit in the commonwealth to be issued the .303. I'll be sad to turn mine in, its a grand old weapon that outshoots a LOT of newer stuff, IMHO.

Vigilans...


----------



## geo (5 Jun 2008)

Nope... some Indian and Pakistani units still use the trusty Enfield.
(Pictures during aftermath of Bhuto assassination)


----------



## Lantelin (5 Jun 2008)

Wow... didn't know that... I thought we were the last... good old rifle soldiers on


----------



## geo (5 Jun 2008)

The Enfield is already in the history books as being one of the greatest there ever was.....


----------



## cdn031 (9 Jun 2008)

Some will remember the HUGE volume of 44 headstamped .303 that was warehoused in Borden until the early 80's when it suddenly and mysteriously dwindled (Gee... could it have been our US Langley friends shopping  for THEIR Afghan friends at the time... ;D ) after that IVI kicked in with their production, strangely the old stuff seemed more accurate...


----------



## TCBF (9 Jun 2008)

- I had my mis-matched bolt Long Branch crowned, headspaced and slugged.  The slugging came in at .319!  Probably a record, even for a Long Branch 9normally .307 to .317.

- Shooting DI 1944 and Kynock 1963, ES4 (of 5) at 100 was anywhere from  2 1/2 inches to 4 1/2 inches.  I suspect the error was mine.  Once I burn my way through all of my old surp .303 and start reloading the commercial casings, things will tighten up a bit as well.


----------



## Arius (10 Jun 2008)

No plans to upgrade or change the current LE.  There are still several thousands in stock and only a few each year get issued for the lost or broken ones.  SARP II will look at the Ranger rifle as part of the overall project but I doubt there will be any commonality requirement with the next service rifle.  Like it was said before, going home with a full auto and a 30 rds mag is not an option.

Eventually I would expect another rugged bolt action (off-the-shelves) in the .30 family.  I don’t see this happening for another 10 years unless the Rangers come up with well documented critical deficiencies for their rifles.  Until then, DLR will have nothing to latch on to move a project forward.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (10 Jun 2008)

My apologies if this is a dumb question, but if the Inuit by trial & error have already tried numerous systems and have determined which ones work (which they keep) and which ones don't (which they dump), why wouldn't NDHQ just pick the most popular type, and then standardize it with a standard NATO ammo of their choice?

Honestly, this seems like a hell of a lot of effort (and time, and thus money) on a project with a minimal ROI in terms of our overall defence needs that shouldn't have needed more than a week to contract, once the requirement was defined (and by that I mean the requirement defined as "You know, our Rangers could use some new rifles.  Can someone get on that?").



Matthew.   ???


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2008)

First:  Rangers are not all Inuit, or even all first nations (a common misperception).  They're not just up i nthe high arctic, but also in more southern, temperate climes as well. 

Second:  There isn't necessarily a single, common type of weapon accepted and embraced by all.  The large variety of areas where Rangers are means that the specifications for the weapon will require reliabiltiy in a number of different environments.

Third:  Contracting is not a simple process when government is involved.  If we were to buy, say, 6000 new rifles for the rangers, at around $2000 each (to include some spare parts and the associated accessories) that would be as $12M contract - significant.  Some manufacturers may not be albe to provide the quantity required in the timeframe desired.  Other issues can also pop up to bite the acquisition in the butt (though $12M isn;t that big a contract, so regional economic development and other issues would probably not arise).

Fourth:  At times, other soldiers (Regular Force and Primary Reserve) go out on the land with Rangers, and may use the same weapons.  So whatever weapon is selected will have to be trialled with standard kit used by other soldiers as well, to identify any incompatibilities.

Fifth:  Life cycle.  DND buys in bulk, then keeps items in service for many years.  Plans have to be made to support the weapon for several decades beyond acquisition - and should be in place before any contract is signed.

None of these are insurmountable obstacles; all are points that require consideration in any acquisition.


----------



## Lantelin (10 Jun 2008)

The thing about the .303 isnt the rifle, its the ammo. Apparently they have to contract out for it, and its getting cost prohibitive. Hence the new rifle. They want to switch us rangers to something that uses the same ammo as the rest of you, or so I hear. Its going to be years, tho. We got all this from our CO, so its fairly legit info, but as I said before, i'll believe it when its in my hands.
No, we're not all native or inuit, and we're not all up north. I'm in mid BC, myself.


----------



## lone bugler (10 Jun 2008)

wouldn't refitting lee enfields to 7.62 be more easy on logistics?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jun 2008)

lone bugler said:
			
		

> wouldn't refitting lee enfields to 7.62 be more easy on logistics?



You mean like we already did in the 60's, with the Canadian Arsenals/Longbranch rifle, built on a No 4 Lee Enfield?


----------



## geo (10 Jun 2008)

Key point is... if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!

The Enfield is an old rifle BUT it is rugged and requires only the most basic of maintenance and care..... It works - in spite of all the great white (and green) north - why should we change something - just for the sake of change ???


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (10 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> First:  Rangers are not all Inuit, or even all first nations (a common misperception).  They're not just up i nthe high arctic, but also in more southern, temperate climes as well.
> 
> Second:  There isn't necessarily a single, common type of weapon accepted and embraced by all.  The large variety of areas where Rangers are means that the specifications for the weapon will require reliabiltiy in a number of different environments.....
> 
> ...



In order.....

1)  I know....it was a generalization.  I should've said "Arctic-based Rangers" as I assume that weapons that work in that environment without freezing solid, would be adequate for more southerly regions (the opposite not being true).  

2)  Not surprising that not everyone likes the exact same weapon, but if there's a preponderance of acceptance of a specific weapon type, especially in the Arctic, then it should be considered the favourite unless another weapons system is distinctly superior.

3)  I negotiate, write and manage complex contracts worth upwards of $3 million on a daily basis, and it isn't rocket science.  And I do it as a team of one.  Short Version: I don't buy into the "But contracting is difficult and takes a large team" nonsense.  The whole procurement process continues from my perspective to look a lot like a giant make-work project.

4)  RE:  Standardization - Other than specificying the new rifle can fire either 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm for commonality/logistics, I don't understand what other 'incompatibilities' you'd find.

5)  Life Cycle Costs - Just my opinion again, but outside of ensuring an adequate after-market for components which would be best acheived by sourcing already popular arms (rather than one-off Canadian solutions), I'm not a fan of pre-purchasing "life cycle contracts".  It ends up looking like a giant extended warranty contract where the provider builds large margins in over and above what their expected costs are, in order to guarantee margins....and again, requires staffing and personnel to manage whose salary would be much better spent if they were wearing CADPAT.

Short Version:  I'm not discounting that there are a variety of factors that need to be taken into account.  I am just prejudiced against a procurement process that I see as insanely wasteful, time consuming and inefficient.

Everyone has their own pet peaves....mine is process inefficiencies (yeah, I'm a project management dork....and finance dork.....and database dork....and marketing dork....and economics dork).   ;D  


Matthew.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2008)

I've never claimed that government contracting is efficient or good, but it is the reality that the CF has to deal with on a daily basis.  Today, the Army Commander has the authority to spend up to $25K on his own say-so - more than that and he's got to go through all the hoops.  It's not pretty.


----------



## Stoker (10 Jun 2008)

I know we gave the Afgans some of the older series C7's. Couldn't some of them be converted to semi auto only and issued to the rangers?


----------



## geo (10 Jun 2008)

We once had a rifle called a C1.  A great rifle that was .... semi automatic.  Most people here could show you how to use a single match stick to convert it from semi automatic to full automatic.  It wasn,t intended that way - it just happened.


----------



## Lantelin (10 Jun 2008)

In order for us to be able to store our weapons at home, they have to be bolt action, apparently. Some of us have asked about FNs, C7s and the like, and that was one of the reasons we heard. the FN would be great, but we'd have to keep them locked up somewhere. Most of us have had a familiarization on the C7, but we'll never be issued them.


----------



## Stoker (10 Jun 2008)

Lantelin said:
			
		

> In order for us to be able to store our weapons at home, they have to be bolt action, apparently. Some of us have asked about FNs, C7s and the like, and that was one of the reasons we heard. the FN would be great, but we'd have to keep them locked up somewhere. Most of us have had a familiarization on the C7, but we'll never be issued them.



All weapons should be locked up once in the home. A trigger lock and a hard case could take care of that. As for a bolt action only that's political bull.


----------



## Lantelin (10 Jun 2008)

I mean locked up in a local armory or RCMP station. We couldnt keep them at home. As for trigger locks, they issue them to us now. Doesnt take much to get a trigger lock off tho. 
As a side note, the original rangers back in the war(PCMR) were issued a lever action winchester, the enfields came later when the canadian rangers were created. Todays trivia lesson.


----------



## geo (11 Jun 2008)

The C1s have all gone bye bye... they were disposed/destroyed some time ago & as such - that option is no longer on the table.
As the oldest batch of C7s have already been shipped to the ANA that option isn't on the table either.

WRT Trigger locks... the trigger guard is removable and as such, the locks wouldn't work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2008)

New FN’s or AR10’s clones could be acquired quite easily if the will is there and lot of new options are available for them. Unlikely to happen due to the laws and costs involved though. I wonder how the M14 would perform in the high Arctic, anyone know of any tests done by the US Army over the years? We could get China to make a big batch of M305’s for us, certainly the costs would be much less. The M14 would be an easier sell to the politicians as it looks more like a hunting rifle with the 5 rd mag.


----------



## TCBF (11 Jun 2008)

- The commercial rifle of choice in Iqualauit in Jan 87 was the Remington M700.  Many advantages over the Long Branch, but not as rugged and no ten round magazine.  Not really an issue.

- Where trigger guard locks are impractical, cable locks work fine.  Remember - the locks are there to eliminate accidents (kids, etc.) - not persons with time, tools, and criminal intent. 

- 'Careless storage' cases have been tossed once the judge ascertained that a firearm was in a locked residence.  If you have kids or guests, unloaded and in a locked room/closet, or cases or cable/trigger locked is necessary.  'Careless storage' does not apply to firearms 'in use' such as cleaning, dry firing, etc, but if you cannot control the firearm(s) you have 'in use', you fail the 'in use' test.    I rather doubt if the Cdn Rangers in arctic communities bothered much with any of this.  They have been known to lean the Long Branch against the outside wall of the house in the fall and maybe dig it out of the snow in the spring.

- FNs: FN C1A1D and FN C2A1 had a shorter trigger plunger and a different change lever.  No need for semis for Rangers in any case.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2008)

Non-restricted firearms do not require trigger locks during transport or securely stored. A number of nations have equipped their rangers, frontier guards, scouts with semi-auto's. I do think the day is coming for us to do as well.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Non-restricted firearms do not require trigger locks during transport or securely stored. A number of nations have equipped their rangers, frontier guards, scouts with semi-auto's. I do think the day is coming for us to do as well.



Why is that?  The roles, missions and tasks of the Rangers wouldn't suggest any such requirement.


----------



## geo (11 Jun 2008)

Given that th rangers are classified as scouts & guides... as well as provide aid to the civil authorities, who needs Auto OR semi auto weapons.
I've used the C1 in the great white north.... tempermental and prone to issues in the cold.... issues that the Enfield does not have.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jun 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why is that?  The roles, missions and tasks of the Rangers wouldn't suggest any such requirement.




Because I can foresee that the Rangers will be required to step up there role in the North and we will have to exert more force to keep it. The North is resource rich and our claim is not terribly strong. You can bet that any opposing party the rangers bump into will be well armed (Only for self-protection of course!: ) While their current mission is scouting and patrolling, as conflict arise that job may change very quickly.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2008)

What about something like new build M1 Garands? Its a proven weapon with a powerful cartridge.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> They have been known to lean the Long Branch against the outside wall of the house in the fall and maybe dig it out of the snow in the spring.



Really.
Just talked to someone about that,they tend to disagree quite a bit.Said something about how they use it quite a bit hunting and stuff.I don't know,he lived there for 20 odd years.


----------



## 40below (12 Jun 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Because I can foresee that the Rangers will be required to step up there role in the North and we will have to exert more force to keep it. The North is resource rich and our claim is not terribly strong. You can bet that any opposing party the rangers bump into will be well armed (Only for self-protection of course!: ) While their current mission is scouting and patrolling, as conflict arise that job may change very quickly.



I've tagged along on a couple sovereignty patrols with Rangers when I lived in the Arctic, and while these (mostly) guys can shoot the a** off a blackfly at 200 metres with their Lee-Enfields - and on that basis alone might actually be more formidable than some people give them credit for if an opposing force were to encounter them on the sea ice near Pangnirtung in the future - they are not and never will be combat troops. It doesn't matter what weapons they're issued (as long as they don't shatter when they're dropped at -40C, which the LE doesn't). They're self-sufficient S&R and eyes and ears in the North, and they do that job very well.


----------



## geo (12 Jun 2008)

From my dealings with the Rangers and the Ranger Staff, the Enfield is not necessarily the favorite rifle that the Rangers have when they are out on the land.... If they go out hunting a lot, the'll probably have several rifles in a variety of calibres - calibres better suited to the beastie they'll be hunting.... BUT, considering the FREE ammunition that is provided to each ranger detachment each year, there is a powerful incentive to retain and use the Enfield whenever possible.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jun 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> I've tagged along on a couple sovereignty patrols with Rangers when I lived in the Arctic, and while these (mostly) guys can shoot the a** off a blackfly at 200 metres with their Lee-Enfields - and on that basis alone might actually be more formidable than some people give them credit for if an opposing force were to encounter them on the sea ice near Pangnirtung in the future - they are not and never will be combat troops. It doesn't matter what weapons they're issued (as long as they don't shatter when they're dropped at -40C, which the LE doesn't). They're self-sufficient S&R and eyes and ears in the North, and they do that job very well.



I am a big fan of the Lee Enfield and think it’s a great rifle. However I am thinking ahead to a day with the world getting not so nice. Russia is flexing it’s Arctic muscles as well as China has expressed some interest in our North as well. Well the current setup for the Rangers works well as a stop gap (this not meant in disrespect to the Ranger themselves) The hard reality is that we will have to beef up our Northern forces to make it undesirable to push the territorial issues with us. Adding to the Ranger capabilities makes sense from a economic and social viewpoint. Not to mention that all good things come to a end and the Lee-Enfield is coming near to the end of it’s service life, we need to think beyond the moment and to see what they will need in the future and what sort of threats they will face.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am a big fan of the Lee Enfield and think it’s a great rifle. However I am thinking ahead to a day with the world getting not so nice. Russia is flexing it’s Arctic muscles as well as China has expressed some interest in our North as well. Well the current setup for the Rangers works well as a stop gap (this not meant in disrespect to the Ranger themselves) The hard reality is that we will have to beef up our Northern forces to make it undesirable to push the territorial issues with us. Adding to the Ranger capabilities makes sense from a economic and social viewpoint. Not to mention that all good things come to a end and the Lee-Enfield is coming near to the end of it’s service life, we need to think beyond the moment and to see what they will need in the future and what sort of threats they will face.



- You could give the Rangers plasma rifles in the 10 megawatt range and that would still not effect the 'strategic'  balance in the Arctic.  Bolt guns are sufficient.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Really.
> Just talked to someone about that,they tend to disagree quite a bit.Said something about how they use it quite a bit hunting and stuff.I don't know,he lived there for 20 odd years.



- My source was my replacement in 1986.  He had just spent a few years in Northern Region, and would fly out to the communities in the spring and check the rifles.  Missing or broken were replaced with new rifles.  The broken ones were then tossed from the Twin Otter's floats as it taxied out into the ocean.


----------



## 40below (12 Jun 2008)

Northern defence in future decades is probably going to be Navy, requiring heavy icebreakers and the sort of ships that Canada hasn't gotten around to building yet. There's a mothballed CF station in Inuvik, but even when I was up there a decade ago, it was starting to crumble and I don't even know if it would be usable today.

It's doubtful groups of Rangers, or any infantry from anywhere, is going to play much of a role ever in that environment - thing about the Arctic is you can go a long way and not actually get anywhere. When I was up there, everyone in the NWT could have fit in the SkyDome with floor seating, and when you were on the ice roads or the Dempster and you saw a sign saying it was only 500km to the next town, you'd think, 'Great! Almost there.'


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

- Icebreakers, subs, satellites, SOSUS lines, LRPAs and fast air.

- The most effective weapon against ground troops in an arctic winter may well be a water bomber.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jun 2008)

Well I had the benefit of working in the Arctic on Icebreakers and doing a fair bit of mining prospecting in Northern areas along with my current job that till recently included the Yukon. The Arctic is for intents and purposes undefended. Our ability to react to any situation in a timely manner is poor. This will place the military in a position in the future of having to use the Rangers for purposes they were never trained and equipped for. My argument is that the situation will likely happen and you must begin to plan for them and the Rangers offer the base structure to build on. What I foresee is a Arctic based Reserve force both land and sea based bolstering the current Ranger patrols. Anyways this discussion is drifting away from the rifles. With my above belief I will argue for a semi-auto that fires NATO 7.62. preferably on a platform similar to our service rifles. I would also argue access and training for heavier weapons, but will save that argument for another thread.

TCBF
Comms are a given, but your idea's have merit, perhaps we can lease the Mar's flying boats  8)


----------



## 40below (12 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Really.
> Just talked to someone about that,they tend to disagree quite a bit.Said something about how they use it quite a bit hunting and stuff.I don't know,he lived there for 20 odd years.



They'll use it for bears, IIRC, but a .303 is a bit more gun than you need for the average hunting trip up there. Maybe OK for caribou, but not ducks and the like, and while undeniably effective against seals, it would make a the pelt pretty much unusable for use as clothing.


----------



## geo (12 Jun 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> They'll use it for bears, IIRC, but a .303 is a bit more gun than you need for the average hunting trip up there. Maybe OK for caribou, but not ducks and the like, and while undeniably effective against seals, it would make a the pelt pretty much unusable for use as clothing.



Yup - the Winchester .223 (aka 5.56mm) is a favorite up north - good for shooting all the small & medium sized varmints
Shotguns for bird shooting....

But the 303 with it's ample supply of FREE ammunition is a real attention getter.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... The Arctic is for intents and purposes undefended. ...



- Almost everyone's arctic is undefended.  In many ways the Arctic is it's own best defence. In any case, you don't so much defend the arctic as you do prevent or destroy incursions.  That will not be done by Rangers with rifles, but by assets that identify incursions (sat, sub, SOSUS, LRPA, Rangers, etc) and assets that destroy them (sub, fast air, bombers and cruise missles).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jun 2008)

What you will see is “scientific, research, resource exploration” groups showing up without announcement, they will land, set up camp, claim they have a right and sit there to see what you do. They will be armed with light weapons, mostly likely rifles, whatever duty weapons their military uses. You might not able to get a military unit there and may not be able to bomb them as they are appearing to be civilians. What will the government do? They will send the nearest Ranger patrol. If that patrol shows up poorly armed they will be at best ignored, at worse caught in the wrong end of a firefight. If the patrol shows up equipped for a fight, chances are there will be none. 

Fighters, patrol aircraft, UAV and Naval and CCG ships are great, and will be important parts of the Arctic defense.  But you still need boots on the ground, the only boots we have there are the Rangers, it’s time to start building up that capability. If Global warming happens as predicated our defenses are disappearing as we speak.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

- What you do is send a helicopter full of RCMP/canada Customs/Immigration Agents and document them and arrest them.  ANY lack of cooperation results in escalation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - What you do is send a helicopter full of RCMP/canada Customs/Immigration Agents and document them and arrest them.  ANY lack of cooperation results in escalation.



Having worked with the above organizations, I think I would take the Rangers.  

Hell they won't arrest First Nations placing illegal blockades in the middle of Ontario.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... Hell they won't arrest First Nations placing illegal blockades in the middle of Ontario.



- That is a purely internal matter.  Aliens tresspassing in our Arctic is diplomatic put up or shut up time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - That is a purely internal matter.  Aliens tresspassing in our Arctic is diplomatic put up or shut up time.



That might happen with Harper, but Dion would send a strongly worded whine to the UN about how unfair it is.


----------



## TCBF (12 Jun 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> That might happen with Harper, but Dion would send a strongly worded whine to the UN about how unfair it is.



- We all know what neutral Sweden does to unidentified submersed contacts in her waters.  Sweden would back us up.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (12 Jun 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> They'll use it for bears, IIRC, but a .303 is a bit more gun than you need for the average hunting trip up there. Maybe OK for caribou, but not ducks and the like, and while undeniably effective against seals, it would make a the pelt pretty much unusable for use as clothing.



How would a .303 round make a pelt unusable?You realise you so shoot them in the head right?No you don't usually hunt ducks with 303's (I use a 12 guage,or a 4/10) however as Geo mentioned free ammo is the big seller.And yes you can blow the head off foul with a 303.

Geo IIRC you spent a few years in the North as well?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Jun 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What about something like new build M1 Garands? Its a proven weapon with a powerful cartridge.



I was originally thinking about new-build Springfield M1A's because of their popularity and you know you'd be able to get parts FOREVER, but was unsure of how well direct impingement works in the arctic?  

I also looked up Norway and Sweden to see what they're doing.  Norway just bought the HK416/HK417 which I thought was interesting (assuming they probably tested the hell out of their alternatives before making those selections).

One option I would explore would be the HK SL8 (5.56mm) or SL9 (7.62mm) both of which use the G36's key internals and policitally-important, don't have a pistol grip.



Matthew.


----------



## TCBF (13 Jun 2008)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> ...I also looked up Norway and Sweden to see what they're doing.  Norway just bought the HK416/HK417...



- Denmark has an equivalent to Rangers in Greenland.  They use bolt action .30-06s


----------



## X-mo-1979 (13 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Denmark has an equivalent to Rangers in Greenland.  They use bolt action .30-06s



30 odd 6 is a nice rifle,however IIRC the ammo was quite expensive a few years back.I remember my father had one and got rid of it for that reason.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (13 Jun 2008)

30-06 is no more expensive than any other standard cartridge.


----------



## TCBF (13 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> 30 odd 6 is a nice rifle,however IIRC the ammo was quite expensive a few years back.I remember my father had one and got rid of it for that reason.



- .30 - 06 is the most popular sporting cartridge in North America (second is .270 win., third is 7mm Rem. Mag.).  It has more bullet varieties commonly available than any other cartridge.  It will take all game in North America. You can hanload it for polar bears or groundhogs.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jun 2008)

FYI - 30-06 and .303 are rather old cartridges the 7.62x51mm NATO / .308 Win round with the modern propellants gives the same range and energy...


----------



## TCBF (13 Jun 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FYI - 30-06 and .303 are rather old cartridges the 7.62x51mm NATO / .308 Win round with the modern propellants gives the same range and energy...



- I would put the .303 in the same catagory as .30-30, .45-70, 7.62X54R, etc.  a good cartridge if you are handloading for a specific rifle with a strong action, but the SAAMI specs assume worst case - surplus/old actions - and their specs suffer consequently.  

- The .308 Win will equal the .30-06 for most applications, but .30-06 has more versatility (up to 250 grain bullets: no doubt due to a longer necked cartridge case and a faster rifling twist - 1 in 10 - vice 1 in 12 for most .308s).  For our purposes (Rangers), I can't see a big disadvantage to going to a bolt .308.  If we wanted a 1 in 10 twist to better stabilize heavier bullets, I am sure we could get it.  It would come in a shorter rifle, to boot.


----------



## geo (13 Jun 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Geo IIRC you spent a few years in the North as well?


Ayup.... '77 thru to '85
All over the eastern Arctic, Northern Ontario, Northern Quebec, Newfoundland & Labrador + NB, NS & PEI - lots of fun with lots of intersting people.


----------



## jonathan_power (25 Jun 2008)

geo, what exactly was your job?


----------



## mudgunner49 (25 Jun 2008)

jonathan_power said:
			
		

> geo, what exactly was your job?



Promoter of Northern Travel and Tourism??


----------



## geo (26 Jun 2008)

At the time I was working with the HBC (Horny boy's club) Northern stores....
Worked as an Accountant/Auditor = "Hi, I'm from head office & I'm here to help you" >
Was well paid for the time - but, after 8 years of the stuff, got tired of living outa a suitcase/Duffel bag
Get snowed in and you'd have to wait up to a week till the next plane came thru


----------



## jonathan_power (26 Jun 2008)

snowed in
fun times
it does sound fun for the first couple years though


----------



## geo (26 Jun 2008)

Lotta fun....
Picture being in a twin otter flyind in a white out... Inuit seated across from me - puked his heart out, filled up 3 Airsick bags after which his buddy went to the pilot to get a few more..... 
When the plane landed... he exited ASAP in the white out and wouldn't get back in.... FUN!


----------



## Bearpaw (2 Sep 2008)

What about the m98 chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO/.308 Win?  

The m98 is in production:

http://www.mauserwaffen.de/Home.home.0.html?&L=1.

The m98 is a well-proven rifle in cold weather.

Bearpaw


----------



## TCBF (4 Sep 2008)

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> What about the m98 chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO/.308 Win?
> 
> The m98 is in production:
> 
> ...




- Ishapore 2A and 2A1 in 7.62 X 51mm.  India probably has a few hundred thousand in war stocks.


----------



## Bearpaw (4 Sep 2008)

Thanks for pointing that out---I did a small Google search on bolt-action rifles but did not bring that one up.  
If the Isapore 2A/2A1 rifle, which is essentially the same as the old one except for the NATO standard calibre, is available, I would think that it is a "no-brainer" to acquire them from India.  They should be fairly cheap---probably 25% of the price of the Mausers.  There are not too many choices at hand if we really want a NATO standard 7.62mm bolt-action rifle.

Bearpaw


----------



## geo (4 Sep 2008)

Question is.... do we really need a 7.62mm or .303cal round for our Rangers ?

the 5.56mm /.22230 has been in use up north for a long time. The Inuit hunters who compose the majority of the Rangers are quite comfortable with the calibre.  The ammo is readily available - without even having recourse of shipping our own stock up north every summer.

Possibly / probably, 5.56 NATO standard is the route to go


----------



## mudgunner49 (4 Sep 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Question is.... do we really need a 7.62mm or .303cal round for our Rangers ?
> 
> the 5.56mm /.22230 has been in use up north for a long time. *The Inuit hunters who compose the majority of the Rangers are quite comfortable with the calibre*.  The ammo is readily available - without even having recourse of shipping our own stock up north every summer.
> 
> Possibly / probably, 5.56 NATO standard is the route to go



No kidding!!!  I was amazed that one of the guys in Moosonee was going to hunt polar bear with a .222 and when I asked him how he thought it would work he just smiled and said* "No problem.  I just get real close and when the dogs distract him I will shoot him inthe ear..."*

Crazy.


blake


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Sep 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Question is.... do we really need a 7.62mm or .303cal round for our Rangers ?
> 
> the 5.56mm /.22230 has been in use up north for a long time. The Inuit hunters who compose the majority of the Rangers are quite comfortable with the calibre.  The ammo is readily available - without even having recourse of shipping our own stock up north every summer.
> 
> Possibly / probably, 5.56 NATO standard is the route to go



Are you sure it's the same ammo? I just fired .243, the case is bigger than .308.


----------



## TCBF (5 Sep 2008)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Are you sure it's the same ammo? I just fired .243, the case is bigger than .308.



- If so, length only, and not by much  Reason: Same cartridge case - to start with.

T65E3:
1952 .308 Winchester
1954  7.62mm X 51 mm NATO
1955 .243 Winchester (.308 necked down to 6mm)
1955   .358 Winchester (.308 necked uo to .35) 
1958 7 mm '08 (.308 necked down to 7 mm - a "Wildcat")
1960s 6.5 '08 (.308 necked down to 6.5 mm - various "Wildcat" (non-SAAMI Std) cartridges)
1980 7 mm-08 Remington (standardization of 7mm-08)
1996 6.5-08 A Square and..
1997 .260 Remington (standardization of a 6.5 '08)
2006 .338 Federal

Enjoy!


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Sep 2008)

Hello to all,

Most provinces have a mininum .24 calibre for hunting big game, and thats SP, not ball. I don't know about the territories.

To the best of my knowledge ball is illegal to hunt big game with, regardless of your ethnic background (european or native), all for humane purposes. At least it was when I left in 95. I am a former big game hunter from the early 1970s onwards to not so long before I left.

Happy trails/days,

OWDU


----------



## geo (5 Sep 2008)

when I spent time up north in the late 70s/ early 80s, the Winchester "super 22s" (5.56) became very popular with the local natives - 303s and 308s sorta faded away after that.  5.56 was great for hunting seals, fox & average sized critters out on the tundra... a little less so with the Polar bears.

(note that you don't have to outrun the bear.... just outrun the guy who is running next to you > )


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Hello to all,
> 
> Most provinces have a mininum .24 calibre for hunting big game, and thats SP, not ball. I don't know about the territories.
> 
> ...


Using ball for hunting is a provincial pervue. Ethics (and ethnics) aside, Ontario has no law banning the use of ball for hunting.


----------



## MG34 (5 Sep 2008)

It doesn't matter the caliber or type of weapon issued to the Rangers.Their weapons are issued in order for them to accomplish their assigned mission, NOT hunting. The ammunition issued to them is for maintenance of skills, and for the accomplishment of their mission if assigned one, not shooting game.
 Their personal preferences with regards to hunting calibers are about as irelavant as any soldier serving south of 60 with regards to the weapon issued them by the CF. If the Ranger's personal weapons are replaced (not likely) it will be up to the government of the day to decide the status of the Rangers and their issued weapons.


----------



## geo (5 Sep 2008)

MG34
There is no argument that the gov't and only the gov't will decide on what type of Kit will be utilised by the Rangers.
The Enfield currently used by them is an excellent and adequate weapon for them to use while on patrol...
The rifle and ammo are provided to them and they are expected to maintain their shooting proficiency throughout the year.
They are permitted to use their service rifle for hunting.  There are no regulations barring them from such an activity.

However, the 303 imperial it chambers is outdated.  Although stockpiled by the CF at Ranger detachments, you might not find any in some northern communities that do not have detachments.... VS having the option of walking into the local "Northern Stores" outlet & picking up a couple of boxes.


----------



## MG34 (5 Sep 2008)

.303 British (Imperial is a brand name from a now defunct Canadian ammunition company), is possibly one of the most common calibers in Canada,especially in the rural and northern communities. It is also quite common world wide, so I doubt very much there would be a shortage of ammunition except in the case of  incompetent or very unknowledgeable   supply/local procurement pers.
  The point I'm making is that hunting is not the primary task of these rifles and ammunition, yes they are used for these activities but the weapons and ammunition provided by the Crown are for the local protection of Ranger Pers while performing their duties. This makes all the useless talk of hunting regulations and ammo choices for game moot and contributing nothing to the topic at hand.


----------



## TCBF (6 Sep 2008)

- The IVI .303 Issued to Rangers is not the old DA/DAQ/DAL/DI etc Cdn Mark VII 174 grain ball.  It is new brass "IVI 303 British" topped with a 215 grain round nose similar to the old Dominion/Imperial 215 grain KKSP ("Kling-Kore Soft Point").

- I suppose the theory is that if they are going to hunt with it, it might as well be hunting ammo.  Heavy bullets moving at medium velocity are designed to take heavy game at medium range. Seal ammo it ain't.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Sep 2008)

Ah, thanks for sharing. I still figured they were getting some type of ball/FMJ.


----------



## TCBF (6 Sep 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks for sharing. I still figured they were getting some type of ball/FMJ.



- The downside is that the new stuff has good curb appeal - yardsale-wise - and you may find brown twenty round boxes of it in your local firearms emporium with a $19.95 pricetag on it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Sep 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The downside is that the new stuff has good curb appeal - yardsale-wise - and you may find brown twenty round boxes of it in your local firearms emporium with a $19.95 pricetag on it.



$26.95 for 180gr softpoints at Cdn tire.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Sep 2008)

Lantelin said:
			
		

> In order for us to be able to store our weapons at home, they have to be bolt action, apparently. Some of us have asked about FNs, C7s and the like, and that was one of the reasons we heard. the FN would be great, but we'd have to keep them locked up somewhere. Most of us have had a familiarization on the C7, but we'll never be issued them.



The Norwegian Home Guard are issued G3s and MG3s. One guy who invited me to dinner at his place proudly showed me his nicely oiled MG3, with 4 liners of 7.62 link, casually propped in the corner of his hallway cupboard. They gave him as much ammo as he needed tro stay in tip top form as a gunner. He practised in a local quarry. I was told by the local commander that there were never any problems with the troops abusing these apparently lax weapon handling practises becasue they all took their jobs deadly seriously.

Now, that was a system put in place on the assumption that a Soviet Airborne Division might drop in for lunch withoput reserving ahead but, if other countries heavily arm their 'home guards' with current weapons, we certainly can too. We just need to start taking the whole thing a bit more seriously now that most of the first world will be heading to our more remote regions to stake oil claims.


----------



## MG34 (15 Sep 2008)

As much as I would like to see the Rangers armed like that, it would be a hard sell as the sheeple in Canada are trained from birth it seems to fear any sort of firearm.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (18 Dec 2008)

I have spent some time in Nunavut and virtually all the hunters I saw carried .223 (5.56mm) rifles for hunting virtually everything, including Tundra Grizzly.

I would imagine that the Inuit would be very happy to issued a 5.56mm weapon, which is what they seem to prefer anyway.

I would like to see them issued with C7s, perhaps some of the old carry handle ones we're currently giving to the ANA. We could replace the selector with a semi auto only trigger pack if that's a concern. 

However, Northern communities do have some serious social issues and it wouldn't be great press for the CF if a ranger weapon was used inappropriately... maybe they could be stored in the Ranger detachment and signed out for patrols and hunting?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Dec 2008)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> However, Northern communities do have some serious social issues and it wouldn't be great press for the CF if a ranger weapon was used inappropriately... maybe they could be stored in the Ranger detachment and signed out for patrols and hunting?



Every Innuit hunter seems to own at least 7 rilfes already, ranging from .22cal to .450 cal (for whales). I don't know if a few C7s added to the mix would cause that much more of a problem.


----------



## TCBF (18 Dec 2008)

- I think we should give them a rifle allowance: so much a month to purchase, maintain and feed a rifle meeting the type/calibre/accuracy standards we set.  Allow them the flexibility to choose from a list of commercial rifles and calibres and set their marksmanship standards to Extreme Spread of a group and a 'cold barrel - one shot' application at a fixed range.

- We would be better served with them carrying a rifle they LIKE to shoot all of the time.

"Beware the man who own's only one rifle - he probably knows how to shoot it."


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Dec 2008)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> I have spent some time in Nunavut and virtually all the hunters I saw carried .223 (5.56mm) rifles for hunting virtually everything, including Tundra Grizzly.
> 
> I would imagine that the Inuit would be very happy to issued a 5.56mm weapon, which is what they seem to prefer anyway.
> 
> ...



The issuing or giving of an automatic weapon to public citizens for hunting/unsupervised use etc is not going to happen PERIOD.

Once the No.4's go, TCBF's idea would suffice, and sounds workable. However, I am sure the No.4's will be around for many decades yet.  Seen plenty of RFI SMLEs carried by Indian Forces during their recent terrorist attacks, plus these LE rifles are all over the world in both police/military and private hands. 

Overall this pattern of rifle has been around for well over 100 yrs (with its mods/Marks over the yrs). It has proven to be robust and reliable and little maintenance is required shy of the standard type (pull-thru and oil ;D ). I own about 6 of them from Lithgow No1 MkIII (1916) to No4 Mk1*(LB 1943), No.5 (UK made and FTR 1946), and the AIA M10A2 in 7.62 x 39mm ( 2004).

Truly the real workhorse of the British Common-Wealth and former British Empire.

Plenty of No4 Mk1* Long Branch rifles appear on this Australian website for sale. Have a squizz www.usedguns.com.au - go to 'military rifles'.

For AIA rilfles go here www.australianinternationalarms.com.au as these are the new generation of the LE rifle, based on the No.4 action.

Perhaps the AIA No.4 variant in 7.62 x 51mm would be a good choice for replacement?

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2008)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> However, Northern communities do have some serious social issues and it wouldn't be great press for the CF if a ranger weapon was used inappropriately... maybe they could be stored in the Ranger detachment and signed out for patrols and hunting?


As it is, Ranger rifles are involved in "incidents" on a regular basis for a variety of reasons.  When they are, they are secured by the local RCMP, SQ or OPP detachment until such time as the investigation is over - and returned to the individual or the Ranger Patrol Group superior (as appropriate).
With respect to issuing an automatic rifle..... why ???
The rangers are, for all practical purposes - scouts.  They are expected to patrol & report.

The old No 4 enfields are a good robust rifle - easy to maintain - able to go to hell and back with only a little bit of care and cleaning... The only thing that would facilitate things for the Rangers would be a change to 5.56mm / .223 cal ammo.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (19 Dec 2008)

> The issuing or giving of an automatic weapon to public citizens for hunting/unsupervised use etc is not going to happen PERIOD.



It happens in lots of other countries. Also I suggested that a Ranger issued C7 could be limited to semi only, this would give them a rifle that is really no different than what they could buy themselves (for example a Mini-14). 

As for why... the Rangers are a part of the military, and we want to beef up our presence in the North, so why not? In fact we could also start training them to use MANPADS...


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2008)

we could also start training them to use MANPADS...  might as well give em some M72s or Carl Gustavs to go along with those air defence weapons... never know when there's a big whale or bear to decimate.

If you are prepared to issue C7s to the Rangers - so that they can keep em at home & use em on the tundra, does that mean that you want the reservists to keep C7s at home too ???  If not, why not ???

Rangers are military - YES
but that does not translate itself into an section, platoon, company organisation.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> It happens in lots of other countries. Also I suggested that a Ranger issued C7 could be limited to semi only, this would give them a rifle that is really no different than what they could buy themselves (for example a Mini-14).
> 
> As for why... the Rangers are a part of the military, and we want to beef up our presence in the North, so why not? In fact we could also start training them to use MANPADS...



Loch, its not going to happen in Canada.

Something called common sense will take precidence.

WRT MANPADS, I do hope your joking. For what? Why not give 'em 66's  ;D .


----------



## Loch Sloy! (19 Dec 2008)

Geo, I don't see anthing inherently wrong with reservists keeping their weapons at home, however there would be little practical reason for it under current circumstances. Rangers on the other hand live in an environment where firearms are an important and valuable tool.


Overwatch, I am perfectly serious about training for MANPADS and perhaps even some sort of Shore Defense System; Sweden has an interesting variant of the HELLFIRE for this purpose. Unlike the rifles I wouldn't advocate that these systems be kept at home.  

I realize what type of force the Rangers currently are, I am advocating for what it might evolve towards. I'm not sure why you are so aghast at developing some real capability in the Ranger program. In the arctic we are facing what is currently our greatest threat to Canadian soveriegnty. 

Sorry to deviate from the original topic...


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> Geo, I don't see anthing inherently wrong with reservists keeping their weapons at home, however there would be little practical reason for it under current circumstances. Rangers on the other hand live in an environment where firearms are an important and valuable tool.
> 
> 
> Overwatch, I am perfectly serious about training for MANPADS and perhaps even some sort of Shore Defense System; Sweden has an interesting variant of the HELLFIRE for this purpose. Unlike the rifles I wouldn't advocate that these systems be kept at home.
> ...



Rangers have their purpose, and are filling their role accordingly and doing a good job.  Their role will not change, they're scouts (our eyes and ears in the north who are given rifles going on 70 yrs old), and scouts usually don't engage the En, they report their finding through their chain of command, thats why we have an Army - to do the warfighting. The level of training for our Rangers is IMHO fair at best for what they do now, and it would be extremely difficult to add any real additional responsibilities.

Now, giving Reserves from coast to coast weapons to be stored at home, man, that opens up a whole new can of worms, and is impractical and unacceptable for Canadians. Duty of care, secure storage, (potential 'unauth' use outside of trg). As for some Euro countries who use this home storage, firstly its practical for them and its cultural, been developed generations ago for them. It would be a logistal nightmare for the CF, and then there is the ones who go NES - what then? 

Mate in reality, without sounding too harsh, you're living in a fantasy world, but the good thing is, you've made me laugh this morning.  If I was you, I'd stick to your lane of expertise.

Crikey! There will be no MANPADS trg. Be realistic.

Sorry for sounding a bit direct.

OWDU


----------



## Loch Sloy! (19 Dec 2008)

Well mate, we're kicking ideas around here. Not sure what "lane" I need to be in to toss in my 2 cents, but I've lived Nunavut communities, and actually worked with Rangers. I'd say I'm within my arcs, but feel free to laugh away.

I advocate a more active role for the Rangers, they are our only real presence in the Arctic. We are very unlikely to have any permanently posted combat arms units in the arctic for the foreseeable future. Developing a capability within the Rangers for operating manportable air and shore defence systems strikes me as a very economical way to have a year round defensive capability along the NW passage.

You are misrepresenting my position on the storage of weapons at home by the Primary Reserve. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote... if I'd known a digger would be reading my post I would have used smaller words.


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2008)

Loch Sloy
Lived & worked throughout Baffin over an 8 year period (77-85) and amply exposed to the rangers at that time.  Been to most all communities on that hunk of rock - Belchers thru to Grise Fjord.
Currently working in LFQA HQ and deal with the 2nd Ranger Group's area HQ (3+ yrs)... I think I know my rangers.

Developing reserves throught the great white north..... sure - absolutely - but they shouldn't be Rangers - they have their own job to take care of.... they are good at what they do - don't mess with em.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (19 Dec 2008)

Fair enough.

Let's get on with developing the reserves up there then... we need something up there year-round.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> You are misrepresenting my position on the storage of weapons at home by the Primary Reserve. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote... if I'd known a digger would be reading my post I would have used smaller words.



Firstly, if I want to be insulted I'll ring my ex-wife  :

Here is what you wrote: "I don't see anthing inherently wrong with reservists keeping their weapons at home". These are YOUR OWN words, not mine, you wrote 'em. I simply reacted.

Before you gob off at me, my 2yr TI 2LT '20 poster' friend, read my profile. I was just trying to give you some friendly advice from someone who has been around, and maybe before someone dog plied on you.

I spent 18 yrs, 11 months and 22 days in the CF. I was born in Saskatchewan, been to the Arctic myself, and I too have worked along side Rangers. Although I sport dual nationality, and I have done my time in the Army here, which included operational service in Iraq, I did spend the first 35 years of my life in Canada. I do beleive I know what I am talking about. Something called life experience.

The last thing I need today is to get arc'd up over, is the 'know-it-all-been-there-done-that' attitude from what appears to be a snotty nosed 2LT. Have that attitude with your Snr mbrs in your Militia unit, and you won't last. Take that to heart!

Now we should get back on topic of new rifles for the Rangers, if you want to start a thread with enhancing the Rangers, or Reserve capability in Canada's north, do so, you're supposed to be an officer allbeit, a jr inexperienced one at that, so instead of your cheap Digger insults, lets see some real productive action from you in another thread. 

OWDU


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> ... The old No 4 enfields are a good robust rifle - easy to maintain - able to go to hell and back with only a little bit of care and cleaning... The only thing that would facilitate things for the Rangers would be a change to 5.56mm / .223 cal ammo.



- Yesterday's rifle - and not cheap.  Original wood, non-sporterized Long Branch No.4 Mk.I* s are going for $500 in good shape.  Consecutive serial numbered Irish Constab models for $2,000 the pair.  More modern, rugged and lighter rifles, with scopes, can easily fit the bill for a 'scout' rifle.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Yesterday's rifle - and not cheap.  Original wood, non-sporterized Long Branch No.4 Mk.I* s are going for $500 in good shape.  Consecutive serial numbered Irish Constab models for $2,000 the pair.  More modern, rugged and lighter rifles, with scopes, can easily fit the bill for a 'scout' rifle.



Hey TC, did you check out those two websites on Aussie rifles?

As for scout rifles here, the Army is using the Springfiled Armory M1A, kitted out with a 18" bbl. What about going semi-auto with this type of rifle fitted with an 18.5 inch bbl? Not politically correct? Or maybe the drawback could be the 5 rd mag?

What do you think of the AIA No.4 rifle? Do you think this could be suitable? I took these pics back in Mar 05 at the Belmont rifle range. I borrowed this AIA No.4 off one of the engineers responsible for its design.

Cheers,

Wes

EDITed for spelling (as usual)


----------



## ammocat (19 Dec 2008)

I may be outside my arcs, but why exactly does the Lee Enfield need to be replaced? Is there a shortage of rifles to keep the Rangers outfitted? As far as .303 ammunition, the CF currently purchases two types, a cartridge with a full metal jacket projectile and one with a soft point projectile. If there is a shortage of ammunition, I would imagine that it is due to allotments and not procurement. There is plenty of .303 ammo in the depots. 

Many years ago when I worked with the Rangers, they seemed very happy with their .303s and the ammo supplied to them. If the Rangers are to act as scouts or guides, then presumably if there is a major incident requiring military action the CF would deploy the required units to the north. If the Rangers require C-7's they could be supplied at that time, since I believe most Rangers have done C-7 familiarization and have the opportunity to fire the C-7 when training with other units, I don't think it would be a difficult transition for them. I don't think the CF will ever tolerate soldiers in any capacity taking home C-7s, FN C1's or any other semiautomatic or full automatic capable rifles.

If there is a desire to upgrade to a different calibre, the CF already has .308 and .30-06 bolt action rifles in the system and the ammunition for these is already available. Although many nice rifles have been mentioned throughout this thread, I think having the CF adopt yet another rifle just complicates the support requirements, ie different ammunition, parts, repair and maintenance, training of Rangers, support personnel and weapon techs, etc.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

More pics....

Note the improved front sight post


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

More pics yet again....


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Hey TC, did you check out those two websites on Aussie rifles?
> 
> As for scout rifles here, the Army is using the Springfiled Armory M1A, kitted out with a 18" bbl. What about going semi-auto with this type of rifle fitted with an 18.5 inch bbl? Not politically correct? Or maybe the drawback could be the 5 rd mag?
> 
> ...



Wes,

- If we are outfitting hunters, let's give them a hunting rifle.  The old stuff is heavier than it needs to be and parts are getting scarce. Let's give them what they use as hunters.  Set standards and give them a choice of models and calibers, then give them a rifle/ammo allowance. It would save us money.

- The AIA Number 4 is probably the most expensive rifle Vietnam has ever produced and customer service/communications between AIA and it's dealers and customers in Canada got off to a rocky start.  I once said that a rifle's test fire groups at the factory should not be fired into the marketing staff before they have a chance to do their jobs.  My joke stands.

- Still brutally cold in Edmonton.

AmmoCat,

- My idea is not to adopt a rifle, but subsidize the ones they have or will buy, just like we pay them for use of their trucks/quads/snowmachines/boats/trailers/etc.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

Still more of this rifle...

To sum up, the 7.62 NATO calibre, and the new 10 rd M14 mag, along with an improved LE 21st century design in my opinion make this rifle suitable for Ranger use, still keeping in tradition, and using a cartridge readily available throu Defence or civil purchase in .308 Win.

Robust, easily maintained, and no real further training. 

The rifle can be fitted with Picatinny rail, and the standard No.4 Mk1* rear sight does fit, but only if the rail system is removed.

In bulk purchases, I amsure these rifles could be resonably priced along with a host of spare parts etc, as a pkg deal.

Again just my opinion.

OWDU 

EDIT: This rifle was used for T&E by AIA and so marked.


----------



## ammocat (19 Dec 2008)

To subsidize the Rangers for rifles that they have is an interesting idea. So you want to give them an allowance for ammunition and let them buy what ever ammo they want. I am not sure that there is a regulation in the ammo world that would prevent this and unfortunately I don't have access to my work computer, after Christmas I will get into the books and see if I can find anything that would prevent this. Not that regulations can't be changed.


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> More pics yet again....



- If you want to buy a modern strong action Lee Enfield-type rifle in .308 Win, it is the only option.  I have seen them used during club 'Service Rifle' shoots.  But for the same money, one could buy a Stevens 200 with scope and accu-trigger, in most popular calibres. 

- Individual choice.  I own Long Branch's in .303, 7.62 and .223, plus a Jungle Carbine, so I am in no position to tell another person what to buy or not.  But I can't see the AIA replacing the Long Branch in Ranger service.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> The AIA Number 4 is probably the most expensive rifle Vietnam has ever produced and customer service/communications between AIA and it's dealers and customers in Canada got off to a rocky start.



I paid $1000AUD for my M10A2 in 7.62 x 39mm

I did understand that were some issues WRT customer service. Its just as bad here. The rifle came with no warrantry card, manual or anything in writing, plus its accessories, which included a sight combo tool, two mags, a sling, cheek pad (No.4 T type), Piccatinny rail and a cheap (ultra cheap) gun case. That is piss-poor IMHO. With the AUD at about 69c US, perhaps that might make things cheaper. Although Aussie designed and the main bulk produced overseas (assembled here I do beleive), the rifle is traditionally LE robust, and very well made.

I was told (from within) AIA liked to keep the country of manufacture hush-hush. Too bad it could not have been produced in Australia to encourage such manufacture here. AIA rifles are all CNC milled etc, under guidance from on site Aussie engineers, and of course using high quality material mind you, just the labour is cheaper. I was also told that there was other issues with the direct manufacture here, and thats why it went overseas, but who really knows.

At days end, you get what you pay for, and thats a quality rifle. I thought it was and still is over priced.  Are they still selling in Canada?? Marstar I was told did have the Cdn market. 

Anyways, if they wanted to stay LE, maybe this is the way to go.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## TCBF (19 Dec 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> ... If they wanted to stay LE, maybe this is the way to go.  Cheers,  Wes



- Yes. 

- I can't see Colt Canada building them.  The only domestic firearms producers are niche market (Para Ordnance, etc.).


----------



## Ecco (20 Dec 2008)

ammocat said:
			
		

> To subsidize the Rangers for rifles that they have is an interesting idea. So you want to give them an allowance for ammunition and let them buy what ever ammo they want. I am not sure that there is a regulation in the ammo world that would prevent this and unfortunately I don't have access to my work computer, after Christmas I will get into the books and see if I can find anything that would prevent this. Not that regulations can't be changed.



The ASSB (Ammunition Safety and Suitability Board Certification) process is what you are looking for.  There is NO WAY a rifle allowance makes sense or would be acceptable with our current regulations.  The ASSB process takes years and must be applied to all new natures of ammunition being brought into service.  

It made me laugh too.

I am still unclear about what capability deficiency we are trying to fill with a new ranger rifle.


----------



## ammocat (20 Dec 2008)

I was thinking of something more along the lines of a DAOD or CFAO, but the ASSB process works. Perhaps we could circumnavigate the ASSB with an extraordinary decision based on the immediate operational requirements of the Rangers.

Not clear myself why there is a requirement to replace the .303 or why in the event of some northern emergency we can't reequip them with C-7s or any other weapons and ammo they require to support the CF.

Are there any Rangers on this forum that feel that the .303 does not meet the requirements or of any shortages in weapons or ammunition?


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Dec 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> I am still unclear about what capability deficiency we are trying to fill with a new ranger rifle.



The only pro-C7/ 5.56mm argument I can think of is commonality with the remainder of the CF.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Dec 2008)

Here is the Canadian dealer www.marstar.ca/gf-AIA/M10-N4.shtm

$799.00CAD, in Australia these rifles are currently $1075.00AUD

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## TCBF (20 Dec 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> The ASSB (Ammunition Safety and Suitability Board Certification) process is what you are looking for.  There is NO WAY a rifle allowance makes sense or would be acceptable with our current regulations.  The ASSB process takes years and must be applied to all new natures of ammunition being brought into service.
> 
> It made me laugh too.
> 
> I am still unclear about what capability deficiency we are trying to fill with a new ranger rifle.



- What - after reading all ten pages of this thread - you are still unclear?  

- I was not talking about bringing new calibres or rifles into service any more than we have brought into service the Rangers personal boats/motors/trailers/trucks/quads/snowmachines we pay them a per diem for when they show up.  Just add rifle and ammo to the list and per diem that, too.


----------



## geo (20 Dec 2008)

I should point out that there continues to be a LARGE inventory of Enfield No4s in storage... parts are plentiful (confirmed with a WO who was with them last year) and ammunition allotments are shipped up to the various ranger dets each and every year.

It is a fact that the majority of rangers currently own personal rifles in .223 / 5.56 configuration...

it is a fact, at least in the eastern area served by LFQA, that current allotments of .303 ammunition are not used up each year.

It is a fact that there aren't ranger dets in each and every Inuit community.  Stores (Co-Op and Northern) in those communities don't necessarily stock .303 ammunition - cause there isn,t a demand for it.  They stock .308 & .223 amongst others, cause there is a demand for 'em by paying customers.  Problem being that, if a ranger with an Enfield rifle shows up, while on patrol, looking for a couple of boxes of ammunition, there won't be any.

There is nothing wrong with the Enfield No 4 except that the ammo isn't always readily available.  So - we either tell em to "live with it" and carry more ammo while out on patrol OR we provide em with a good, tough rifle that can handle ammunition that IS readily available in the great white north..... and that IS .308 or .223

Alternatively, give the rangers an allowance for a locally purchased rifle & ammunition


----------



## McG (20 Dec 2008)

ammocat said:
			
		

> I was thinking of something more along the lines of a DAOD


Try DAOD 3002-1, Certification of Ammunition and Explosives.  



			
				geo said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with the Enfield No 4 except that the ammo isn't always readily available.  So - we either tell em to "live with it" and carry more ammo while out on patrol OR we provide em with a good, tough rifle that can handle ammunition that IS readily available in the great white north..... and that IS .308 or .223


However, "readily available" ammunition is not authorized for use in a service rifle (see above).  Unless the local store sells ammunition which has been specifically blessed by the ASSB (and it won't), then providing a new rifle will not change anything.


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2008)

IF it is decided that the Northern Rangers need a new rifle (and I don't think they do)
You know TCBF's comments about simply giving them an allowance for one of several approved firearms, in an approved calibre makes more sense.  They will carry a weapon they like, they will stock ammo for it (and mandate both a basicload and resupply amount).  If you limit them to .223 or .308 bolt guns - you will be able to lend CF ammo if you really really need them to (and yeas I know that the chmaber dimensions for NATO 5.56 is not the same as SAAMI .223 Rem, and NATO 7.62x51 is not the same as SAAMI 308Win - however pressure specs and various insignificant dimensions asside - they will function safely.

A Vietnam bolt gun is ridiculous.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> A Vietnam bolt gun is ridiculous



Hi Kevin,

Its only made there, we all know the design is overall British (21st century mods are Australian), and keeping with the LE tradition of reliability (equates long service life) and the robustness (little can go wrong - parts wear and breakage) of the design, make sense, along with the 7.62mm NATO calibre ( +50 yrs of NATO service and in the CF system currently), Picatinny rail (modern mount for a variety of optics), and large (10rd) mag capacity. The rifle design is combat proven with over 100 yrs of history in service.  If the CF one day has to replace the No.4, this might be the answer. To me, that makes sense.

As for the allowance of money for rifle and ammo, whats stopping that being spent on other things? It could become a rort. Look what we have seen done with CF meal allowances in the past, which in my experience in the hands of young men turned into a booze and junk food filled event on numerous occasions, or just squandered away on other things. I am guilty of that.

Wolverine and Marstar have the rifles now, so they are in Canada, and have been for going on 3 years. I can't see John and Pat H of Wolverine peddling crap.

The rifle is not cheap or a sub-standard 'Khyber copy', and NO short cuts have been taken. All manufacture has been overseen by Australians. I own one ( M10A2 in 7.62mm M-43) as many others do. I give it a healthy 9/10 overall. I don't buy or use crap either. Check out the AIA webiste I provided for more information.

Meanwhile, here is some pics of my carbine. Note, for 1st time readers here on this thread, this is the AIA No.4's baby brother, the M10A2 carbine, chambered for the Russian 7.62 x 39mm cartridge. Designed to take ready available 10 rd AK mags, which work great. These mags I beleive are Hungarian.

Production on this version has been halted, and the No.4 family is in current run. Around Australia, the 7.62 x 39mm version has become rare, and is in high demand, making it worth more, which is good.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## JasonSkald (21 Dec 2008)

I agree that there is really no pressing need for new Ranger Rifles. If the CF decided to purchase new ones, however, why not the Steyr Scout?

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

Lightweight, designed for the purpose, bolt action, could be ordered in 5.56 or 7.62mm.

Just thinking out loud,
cheers.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

More of the M10A2....


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

More close ups....

The rail is removeable. Note the British 'L' type rear sight. The Long Branch rear sight, or the No.5 'Singer' rear sight can be fitted, but if so, the rail must come off. The standard 'L' rear sight can remain on with the rail.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

More still....


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

A few more....

Note the newly designed bolt head with ejector and extractor. Soon as a spent case is clear of the chamber, it is immedialty ejected, unlike the old No.4, when the bolt must clear the ejector screw first. 

Also note the cut in the reciever for removal of the bolt. This is copied off the Canadian No.4 Long Branch rifle. The British cut was not incorperated in the design.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

The final lot...


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

JasonSkald said:
			
		

> I agree that there is really no pressing need for new Ranger Rifles. If the CF decided to purchase new ones, however, why not the Steyr Scout?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_Scout
> 
> ...



Hi Jason, thanks for your input.

Should a replacment be required, a rifle which is robust, as in can be carried on a Ski-Doo (or similar machine in all seasons), and capable of being knocked about (year after year of hard use) in pan-climatic conditions, say +30C to -60C. Plastic on a civilan rifle not designed for military use, IMHO would be a bad decision. I have a local friend that has one of these in 5.56mm, although I have only handled it, it is not that robust. Nice rifle though, but expensive.

OWDU


----------



## KevinB (21 Dec 2008)

Wes,

My point is I highly doubt a small arm from a country in SE Asia is a good idea.  While a fun gun it may be - politically, and rationally, its not a good idea.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Dec 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> My point is I highly doubt a small arm from a country in SE Asia is a good idea.  While a fun gun it may be - politically, and rationally, its not a good idea.



Remember the rifle is designed and the manufacture overseen by Australian engineers (some I know). VN is only the venue, and this could be changed. The rifle is only marked 'Brisbane Australia' nothing says Viet Nam. 

Fun gun, ha! Well I enjoy shooting period  ;D, but the design, and practicality of this rifle are both there. The downside would be say for the next 40 yrs what about spare parts (in qty) to maintain the entire fleet. An FTR program would not be an issue. All would have to be well researched. Whether the rifle comes from VN or a former Com Bloc country say a CZ, or even Germany, should not be a true issue as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## TCBF (22 Dec 2008)

- Currently issuing Long Branch's to Rangers results in some 'interesting' issues - particularly in the more southern groups where the recruiting base is often local resource workers who originated from elsewhere in the country.  Not to poo-poo the recruiting and back ground checks of the system, BUT, rifles DO end up being removed from Rangers and ending up under local RCMP control.

- Thus, a C7 or such type is out of the question.

- If we someday decide to replace the Long Branch, I would recommend we go to a 'per diem' system:
Option A: Ranger is issued a rifle and ammunition only for training exercises - just like the rest of the CF. or
Option B: Ranger brings his own firearm (which must meet standards - to be determined - of type/calibre/accuracy) and is paid a 'per diem' for his rifle, just llike he is for his boat/motor/trailer/quad/etc.

- Note that for option B, the onus is on the Ranger to aquire and maintain his Firearms License.


----------



## geo (22 Dec 2008)

TCBF...
yes, the No4 Longbranches do end up being taken away from Rnagers when they get themselves arrested for ... various reasons.  The RCMP, SQ or OPP are good at keeping an eye on the kit while the Ranger is indisposed.  If the indisposition is declared "permanent", then the rifle is returned to the "Issuing authority" when the come to town.

Option A.... would require vaults / arms rooms that would be under the control of the RCMP / SQ / OPP... a responsibility that they would gladly ..... AVOID... thus, the C7s are out of the question.

Option B.... sure - but, in the meantime, the No4's are plentiful and do not require replacement.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Dec 2008)

Our Arctic competition - the Danes on their Sirius Patrols - carry 30-06 Mauser and 10mm Glocks. 

The former due to the need to deal with Polar bear, and the availability of 30-06 ammo in the communities in Greenland. The latter, because Polar Bear shrug off 9mm.


----------



## geo (22 Dec 2008)

Not sure if I would call them our "competition" ... more like - "counterparts"

From what I can gather, there are intrinsic differences between them and our Rangers.
#1 being that they appear to be full time soldiers from Greenland  VS part timers.

WRT 9mm or 10 mm.....  Polar bears respond well to .303


----------



## McG (22 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> With respect to issuing an automatic rifle..... why ???
> The rangers are, for all practical purposes - scouts.  They are expected to patrol & report.


We do not limit Recce Pl to manually operated bolt action rifles.  It is not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you here; just suggesting a little more depth might be required in the argument.  I'd suggest there would be a significant value to having a gas operated semi-automatic weapon should our Rangers ever encounter an armed threat (even if they are only providing the sense capability).  However, this may be in conflict with some other requirement (like legal storage of the weapon in the home).  



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ... simply giving them an allowance for one of several approved firearms, in an approved calibre makes more sense.  They will carry a weapon they like, they will stock ammo for it (and mandate both a basicload and resupply amount).  If you limit them to .223 or .308 bolt guns - you will be able to lend CF ammo if you really really need them to (and yeas I know that the chmaber dimensions for NATO 5.56 is not the same as SAAMI .223 Rem, and NATO 7.62x51 is not the same as SAAMI 308Win - however pressure specs and various insignificant dimensions asside - they will function safely).


This would not likely meet the thresholds for ASSB approval.  The ammunition has to be specifically approved and with the system that will fire it.  Guys from 1-06 could confirm that even NATO standard is not enough to by-pass ASSB as we were not allowed to us US ammunition.  During the RiP, US ammunition had to be hauled off positions and our ammunition hauled forward.  You know as well as I do that there is complete compatibility between US green tipped 5.56 mm and our C7, but until the safety is confirmed through the system our soldiers are not allowed to use it.  Before anyone gets too concerned, there was the understanding that Canadians would keep shooting if a fire fight ever got to the point where there was only US ammunition available on a position but if we took over a position (like a Pl house) then we had to replace all the stocked ammunition with our own.


----------



## NavyShooter (22 Dec 2008)

Are there any UCR's on the No 4's?

If not, then where is the justification to replace them?

WRT local procurement of ammunition, I believe there was a CANFORGEN abou 2 years ago on that subject that specifically precludes purchasing civilian ammunition for use with CF weapons.  Not. Gonna. Happen.

The rifles work well, a replenishment of spares was purchased a couple of years ago (some surplus LE's went on the international market, and Canada bought a bunch of pallets of them for parts).

My limited experience with the Rangers is that they like their Enfields.  

The only thing I think we should change is that instead of suggesting that we issue them Glocks in 10mm, we should issue them some old .455 Webleys.

NS


----------



## TCBF (24 Dec 2008)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Are there any UCR's on the No 4's?
> 
> If not, then where is the justification to replace them?
> 
> ...



- Who said anything about civ ammo in CF weapons?
- Did the Danes submit a UCR for 10mm?  If not, I can't see a need for .455 ...


----------



## McG (24 Dec 2008)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Are there any UCR's on the No 4's?
> 
> If not, then where is the justification to replace them?


A UCR is not required for equipment to be replaced.  A UCR is simply a means for the end user to identify to the system that equipment is not performing as it needs to be.  If the LCMM for the weapon or the ammunition has identified something that will make the weapon unsupportable at a foreseeable point in the future, then this requirement may exist documented only in email between the LCMM and a DLR desk officer.  If the Army has decided to expand on the role/capabilities of the Rangers, then this may be documented in a CDR or SS(ID) somewhere.  Could be that there is a requirement defined in any number of other places too.  It is also possible that there is no documented requirement for a replacement Ranger rifle and that we are engaged in a purely hypothetical discussion

 ... maybe a requirement exists but has not been documented or maybe there is no requirement.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Dec 2008)

Requirement has been identified; tied to Ranger expansion, but also to long-term supportability.  SS(ID) is, I think, in progress.


----------

