Rifles for Rangers

[1feral1]

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?

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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...

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!]

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]

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!]

Fair enough.

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

 

[1feral1]

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]

... 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]

- 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]

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]

More pics....

Note the improved front sight post

 

[1feral1]

More pics yet again....

 

[TCBF]

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?

Cheers,

Wes

EDITed for spelling (as usual)

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]

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]

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]

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.