Canadian Rangers to replace 120 yr old weapons soon.....

home.mytelus.com...
Read this in local paper today.......Our valiant northern volunteers are finally getting modern rifles.....soon
The famous Lee Enfield bolt action rifles they now use are getting hard to find spare parts for.....they are 120 yrs old.....(the design that is)
This does give one some pause as these Rangers are our first line of defense should the dirty commies sneak down over the N pole......
Colt will supply the new weapons apparently....wonder how M4s do at seventy below zero....??

Who, of a certain age, hasn't fired a .303? Those puppies lasted forever. Damn heavy though. I know people that still hunt with them.

They are still sold here in Canada as war surplus WW2 that is....
The very idea that our Rangers do not have something that can compete for fire superiority with Kalshnikovs,RPDs and more modern weapons seems repugnant to me.....
The Canadian Government hasn't a clue sometimes.....
But the replacement had better be as dependable in the cold.......
Sure an interesting counterpoint to Hard Corps thread on the new 338nm machine gun and combo rifle the yanks are fielding.....

a reply to: stirling

The AK-47's are in the same boat(not AS old). Old, old weapons but just too damn good to ditch. Simple, reliable weapons.

The M4 can be fired at -70, I had to do range qualification when I was stationed up in AK, and it was about -50 on range day

Its like the North Gate in Game of Thrones, armed with criminals and volunteers, but they still held the gate.

In this case Innuit,native Indians and trappers/prospectors......volunteers to a man....
At least give them something to fight with.......

originally posted by: stirling
Our valiant northern volunteers are finally getting modern rifles.....soon

Yes they are...they were packed on the new ice breakers...for delivery.

Sometimes, our government can be such a joke...these guys should have gotten replacements years ago, and it should be a footnote on the procurement ledgers.

The shear fact that is news worthy is embarrassing.

a reply to: stirling

The very idea that our Rangers do not have something that can compete for fire superiority with Kalshnikovs,RPDs…

Whats that, a rocket propelled "drill"?
Sorry, couldn't let it go.

M4s in sub arctic conditions… I would have maybe opted for Ruger Mini 14s.

But Colt will get it I suppose, until they freeze up and jam? (Need input about the M4s durability and reliability in the snow).

a reply to: HomerinNC

The M4 can be fired at -70, I had to do range qualification when I was stationed up in AK, and it was about -50 on range day

Just wondering…

Were those rifles outside all night before "qualifying" at -50 or brought out from a warm barracks?

a reply to: intrptr

both, but they make arctic gun lube for the firearms

a reply to: intrptr

I didn't know if you were kidding or not, so here's a link:
RPD

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: intrptr

I didn't know if you were kidding or not, so here's a link:
RPD

My bad, I though the intent was RPG. Thanks for puncturing my ignorance.

originally posted by: stirling
The very idea that our Rangers do not have something that can compete for fire superiority with Kalshnikovs,RPDs and more modern weapons seems repugnant to me..

I guess they figure most of our population rests within 100km of the US border so they would be in essence the canary in the mine merely providing the warning for stronger forces down south to prepare and mobilize.

But I agree, under my government i'd at least attempt to ensure they have some advanced optics and long range rifles, caches as a front line defence.

I guess it comes down to plausibility. As of yet we hadn't needed to put much thought into an arctic confrontation.
If they came over the arctic, there would be hundreds of kilometres between wherever they established their beachhead and the closest civilization.

We definitely need a decent deterrent up there besides NATO and American backup.

There are reasons the Rangers have consistently preferred the old .303's. They are reliable at temperates -40 and below and have an excellent pop-up sight for long-range shots.

Whatever they're replaced with better not have any plastic parts... (i.e.) a shattered stock makes for a useless firearm and plastics don't like arctic temperates.

Yes... the old Enfields are heavy to lug around, but if you're too close to shoot a polar bear, you can always still beat it to death with that rifle (after which it will still shoot straight).

My guess is that the new rifles will be accepted with many smiles and handshakes, but those coveted .303's will still be close at hand somewhere in their gear. I've used one for a lot of decades and would be hard-pressed to part with it.

originally posted by: masqua

Yes... the old Enfields are heavy to lug around, but if you're too close to shoot a polar bear, you can always still beat it to death with that rifle (after which it will still shoot straight).

amen to that. an older friend from my youth had one [.303 british]- meat gun..... all the way out to... flip up the site and dial it in range.

a reply to: 12m8keall2c

Yes... that sight is really quite accurate and robust.

I may be a tad biased about the Enfield, having used one since I was a teenager, but I remember reading a lot about the Rangers too and how they really, honestly and undoubtedly love that rifle in the arctic regions.

Everything up there is wide flat and open country with no trees to obscure an approaching threat. Those Enfields are good for such an arena. They're also quite deadly; a wound can often prove fatal and, when you have to depend on hunting to survive, I'd much rather have a rifle that does the job of taking down a seal or walrus at 500 yards or more with one shot.

There's also that threat polar bears present in the arctic. The way their skulls are built, most smaller calibre bullets would ricochet off that thick sloping cranium, but a .303 round would do that job nicely. The penetrating power is pretty amazing.

I'm all for being prepared, but as a Canadian, I would like to know why we are getting involved in this whole situation to begin with. Canada has no horses in this race, yet Harper insists on making Russia our new nemesis, poking the bear in public with continued sanctions and now authorizing aircraft to patrol the edge of Russian airspace.

Ever since the western backed Junta-Coup overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in February, Russia has been engaged in a proxy conflict right on the edge of its western border, less then 600 KM from its Capital... so again, why are we getting involved in this, meddling with Russia's affairs?

a reply to: Konduit

[snip]

Russia has planted a flag on the seabed under the north pole and said it belongs to them. The reason why they're interested in expanding their territory in the arctic is the amount of oil and gas that exist under the ocean floor. With the weakening of the polar ice cap, the possibility of accessing that oil is becoming more realistic every year and,to Russia, oil and gas are important economic drivers.

The Rangers are there as observers mostly. If Russian activity starts gearing up, they'll be the first to know about it.

originally posted by: intrepid
Who, of a certain age, hasn't fired a .303? Those puppies lasted forever. Damn heavy though. I know people that still hunt with them.

Ahm... ... I never fired a .303...