Rifles for Rangers

[TCBF]

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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). 

... 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]

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]

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

- 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]

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]

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