Rifles for Rangers
- Thread starter edgar
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
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...
- 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.
- 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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
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. ???
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. ???
- Reaction score
- 22,500
- Points
- 1,090
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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.
No, we're not all native or inuit, and we're not all up north. I'm in mid BC, myself.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
wouldn't refitting lee enfields to 7.62 be more easy on logistics?
- Reaction score
- 4,937
- Points
- 1,060
lone bugler said:
You mean like we already did in the 60's, with the Canadian Arsenals/Longbranch rifle, built on a No 4 Lee Enfield?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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 ???
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 ???
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
dapaterson said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 22,500
- Points
- 1,090
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
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
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,365
- Points
- 1,160
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.
