Rifles for Rangers

[TCBF]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[X-mo-1979]

  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

- 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.