Palehorseman
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 736
Why not just buy up a boat load or two of milsurp rebuilt Mosin Nagant 7.62x54 rifles and ammo. Problem solved. I seem to recall they have done arctic service for several decades. s/
Who'd have guessed there'd be so much trouble making new Enfields?
- Thread starter goon
- Start date
- Status
rodregier
Member
Politics in the real world would tend to mitigate against a 10K unit contract being filled by supplying surplus Mosin Nagants. (Gov't purchasing also hates to buy used). Ironically appropriate design, since they certainly did well in the wilds of northern Russia.
Non-developmental item is the answer. With the current wave of austerity sweeping over the Department of National Defense, unclear if the requirement for a replacement Ranger rifle will start to be filled by any means before the next Canadian general election in 2015.
If the regional DRM will permit access, recent TV series on the Canadian Rangers:
http://www.watchersofthenorth.com/home/episode-guide
Includes some marksmenship training for new Ranger recruits.
Non-developmental item is the answer. With the current wave of austerity sweeping over the Department of National Defense, unclear if the requirement for a replacement Ranger rifle will start to be filled by any means before the next Canadian general election in 2015.
If the regional DRM will permit access, recent TV series on the Canadian Rangers:
http://www.watchersofthenorth.com/home/episode-guide
Includes some marksmenship training for new Ranger recruits.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
That looks . . . intimidating.
But, gawd dang . . . 12 pounds of rifle before adding ammo or optic? For hauling around the great white north?
sayak
Member
To even put the Mosin Nagant in the same category as the Enfield is tantamount to blasphemy. 
I am sure that many of the Rangers appreciate and take care of their rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3DIwtoQMMI
I am sure that many of the Rangers appreciate and take care of their rifles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3DIwtoQMMI
theotherwaldo
Member
Maybe Finn M39s? I know that my old Finn is better all around than my No.4Mk2(F) that was fresh from the arsenal!
Speedo66
Member
Their job is to report violations, not engage an enemy. The rifle is for filling the larder and protection against wildlife that could harm you, not personal defense.
The ranks are primarily Inuit, they may have a different culture regarding maintenance of property. By the way, they get 200 bullets a year in addition to their pay. They are a reserve force, citizens looking around while they lead their life, not regular army. They get a red sweatshirt and a pair of pants, that should give you some idea.
"........Enfield gets rusty, you're fired" Who the heck else are they going to find to patrol up there? ;>)
Exactly. Maybe writing off a few Enfields a year is a small price to pay to have some eyes out in such remote areas.
Having said that, maybe a better solution would be just to give an ammo allowance and require members to supply their own rifles.
Having said that, maybe a better solution would be just to give an ammo allowance and require members to supply their own rifles.
As I recall there was a Remington 700 commemorative sniper rifle that would probably be available right off the shelf. McMillian is doing a copy of it. The ground work has already been done. kwg
http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-g...m40a1-commemorative-marine-corps-sniper-rifle
http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-g...m40a1-commemorative-marine-corps-sniper-rifle
A sniper rifle isn't really needed though - just a durable rifle with a round powerful enough to kill a caribou or moose and able to defend against a large bear in the event that common sense and luck aren't enough. These guys aren't scouts or rangers in the U.S. military sense - they're kind of just guys who are likely to be there anyhow, so the Canadian government makes use of them and gives them an incentive to participate.
How about just giving them a "bonus" every few years to buy a gun with? Government gives them money and says go buy a rifle in this caliber to use for the next three to five years. They supply the ammo and after a prescribed number of years give them another "bonus." Should be cheaper and easier in the long run. Also let's the person get a rifle that they are more comfortable with.
I've been in hospital a few days, and am just catching up.
A good discussion here, and many points raised.
1. It's almost impossible to describe the sheer size of Canada's North to outsiders. When I went there in the early '60s, there were fifty thousand people (or thereabouts)..... IN ONE AND A QUARTER MILLION SQUARE MILES... not "acres", but SQUARE MILES. Most people live in a number of small settlements and the land itself is virtually unoccupied. NO roads, NO powerlines., NO railroads, NO pipelines.... NOTHING.
The "Northwest Territories" of those days spanned FIVE TIME ZONES. The area of the NWT was probably about FIVE times bigger than Alaska (a guess on my part). Boundaries have been adjusted, but the North is still....the North.
2. For decades, it has been a serious and major concern of Canadian Governments, that foreign interests can operate freely in the North unobserved, due to the utter lack of witnesses. This particularly can involve sub-sea oil and mineral resources, as well as military activity (Russia IS an enemy, make no mistake).
3. Nuclear subs operate very effectively under the ice, and we need to know what they're up to.
4. Even in the absence of evil foreign intent, the Rangers are an inexpensive way of showing Canadian sovereignty and ownership of the Far North.
5. I stated that the #4 rifles were written-off. This does NOT necessarily mean that they were abused into a useless state. Some undoubtedly are, but many are likely still being used years later.
6. Re:"Russian armored divisions" There is simply NO WAY that an armored division could be delivered there, and IF delivered there, there is no way it could OPERATE there in the extreme cold, and if indeed it could move its vehicles, there is NO WAY the division could travel any distance at all. I have personally covered a lot of the country on foot, snow-machine and aircraft.... and the topography is a definition of "impossible' to a tanker....even if he could somehow supply the needs of his division. The mere issue of supply is a fair example of "impossible"
A good discussion here, and many points raised.
1. It's almost impossible to describe the sheer size of Canada's North to outsiders. When I went there in the early '60s, there were fifty thousand people (or thereabouts)..... IN ONE AND A QUARTER MILLION SQUARE MILES... not "acres", but SQUARE MILES. Most people live in a number of small settlements and the land itself is virtually unoccupied. NO roads, NO powerlines., NO railroads, NO pipelines.... NOTHING.
The "Northwest Territories" of those days spanned FIVE TIME ZONES. The area of the NWT was probably about FIVE times bigger than Alaska (a guess on my part). Boundaries have been adjusted, but the North is still....the North.
2. For decades, it has been a serious and major concern of Canadian Governments, that foreign interests can operate freely in the North unobserved, due to the utter lack of witnesses. This particularly can involve sub-sea oil and mineral resources, as well as military activity (Russia IS an enemy, make no mistake).
3. Nuclear subs operate very effectively under the ice, and we need to know what they're up to.
4. Even in the absence of evil foreign intent, the Rangers are an inexpensive way of showing Canadian sovereignty and ownership of the Far North.
5. I stated that the #4 rifles were written-off. This does NOT necessarily mean that they were abused into a useless state. Some undoubtedly are, but many are likely still being used years later.
6. Re:"Russian armored divisions" There is simply NO WAY that an armored division could be delivered there, and IF delivered there, there is no way it could OPERATE there in the extreme cold, and if indeed it could move its vehicles, there is NO WAY the division could travel any distance at all. I have personally covered a lot of the country on foot, snow-machine and aircraft.... and the topography is a definition of "impossible' to a tanker....even if he could somehow supply the needs of his division. The mere issue of supply is a fair example of "impossible"
ArchAngelCD
Member.
Let the US Army upgrade the Enfield for them. When we needed a rifle to reach out and touch the bad-guys in Afghanistan the Army armorers broke out the old wooden stock M14 ans did an upgrade that brought the rifles into the 21st Century. you would never know it was an M14 unless you were told.
http://www.guns.com/2012/09/17/us-army-issue-m14-ebr-m14ebr-ri/
http://www.guns.com/2012/09/17/us-army-issue-m14-ebr-m14ebr-ri/
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Doesn't really sound like any upgrading is needed. To me, the key words were "salt water". It takes little exposure and little time for Bad Things to happen.
BruceB said:
Do you know if the rifles that are "written off" are allowed to be kept and just assumed to be lost, or if they're required to be turned back in for a new rifle.
I have to say, if it's the former, people are people. If you knew you could get yourself a shiny new rifle every year it might be awful tempting to say your rifle was damaged beyond repair every year.
henschman
Member
Why are they so stuck on the SMLE? Nostalgia? Any number of current production hunting rifles would do the job just as well, and would not be nearly as complicated and expensive to produce, acquire, and source parts for. They would also probably be more accurate and lighter weight.
They just need to make some calls to Remington, Savage, CZ, et al, and see who can give them the best deal on a .308 with a sporter-weight barrel, iron sights, and picatinny mount. Something like a 700 BDL, Savage Hog Hunter, or CZ-455 would do the job just fine. If salt water is a big concern, maybe spec a stainless or nitride finish.
But then we are talking about the Administrative State here. The rational and efficient route is not an option.
They just need to make some calls to Remington, Savage, CZ, et al, and see who can give them the best deal on a .308 with a sporter-weight barrel, iron sights, and picatinny mount. Something like a 700 BDL, Savage Hog Hunter, or CZ-455 would do the job just fine. If salt water is a big concern, maybe spec a stainless or nitride finish.
But then we are talking about the Administrative State here. The rational and efficient route is not an option.
Last edited:
Do they realize how much money they could make on the civilian market? How many people in the US and Canada would pay like crazy for a .308 enfield with modern steel and manufactoring?
Couldn't that offset the cost, if Colt Canada were to make it?
Couldn't that offset the cost, if Colt Canada were to make it?
Someone was looking to crank out new .308 Enfields in Australia, but I'm not sure that ever got off the ground.
IDK why they're entirely wedded to the Enfield action either. Enfields are good rifles, but some more modern, cheaper, available designs could be used or adapted to make fine rifles too. I think the main reason they kept using Enfields was because of price (the Enfields were already paid for).
IDK why they're entirely wedded to the Enfield action either. Enfields are good rifles, but some more modern, cheaper, available designs could be used or adapted to make fine rifles too. I think the main reason they kept using Enfields was because of price (the Enfields were already paid for).
P.B.Walsh
Member
Yes please, take my money for a modern machined SMLE (with stripper clip cut) in .308. To whom may I make the payment to?
rodregier
Member
The military user reps aren't wedded to the Enfield for the new contract. They just went about trying to write an acquisition contract in the constrained clumsy style of government purchasing without dealing with any of the real world realities of the firearm production business.
The contract specified what the gov't wanted in the new design and essentially asked for bidding manufacturers to almost give away their proprietary design to Colt Canada for production with no constraints on Colt Canada being able to sell subsequent production on the commercial market. The silence from the industry players with a production bolt gun design was deafening. Most firearm manufacturers aren't eager to create a turnkey international competitor using their own designs without an enormous financial incentive.
The really sad part is that Colt Canada apparently didn't even try to step forward to attempt suggesting a structure for a more attractive deal for the candidates. In their defense, Colt Canada has the existing C7 and C8 contracts (and export sales for variants) locked in, so why make the extra effort?
If the Cdn gov't purchasing agents wanted to use a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) design, the Ruger Scout is about 85% there, it would not be terribly challenging to provision it to with some custom furniture and some alternative barrel profiles to get the rest of the way there. I wouldn't hold my breath on such a sensible approach being used, purchasing is probably wedded to most of the production happening in Canada. Thus the impasse will likely continue.
Classically over-constrained problem. And meanwhile the Ranges soldier on...
http://canadiandefence.com/canadian-ranger-rifle/
http://www.firearmstalk.com/Canada-Stalls-on-New-Ranger-Rifles.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/24/the-other-arctic-security-issue-canadian-military-searching-for-a-few-good-guns-to-fend-off-polar-bears/
The contract specified what the gov't wanted in the new design and essentially asked for bidding manufacturers to almost give away their proprietary design to Colt Canada for production with no constraints on Colt Canada being able to sell subsequent production on the commercial market. The silence from the industry players with a production bolt gun design was deafening. Most firearm manufacturers aren't eager to create a turnkey international competitor using their own designs without an enormous financial incentive.
The really sad part is that Colt Canada apparently didn't even try to step forward to attempt suggesting a structure for a more attractive deal for the candidates. In their defense, Colt Canada has the existing C7 and C8 contracts (and export sales for variants) locked in, so why make the extra effort?
If the Cdn gov't purchasing agents wanted to use a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) design, the Ruger Scout is about 85% there, it would not be terribly challenging to provision it to with some custom furniture and some alternative barrel profiles to get the rest of the way there. I wouldn't hold my breath on such a sensible approach being used, purchasing is probably wedded to most of the production happening in Canada. Thus the impasse will likely continue.
Classically over-constrained problem. And meanwhile the Ranges soldier on...
http://canadiandefence.com/canadian-ranger-rifle/
http://www.firearmstalk.com/Canada-Stalls-on-New-Ranger-Rifles.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/24/the-other-arctic-security-issue-canadian-military-searching-for-a-few-good-guns-to-fend-off-polar-bears/
Inebriated
Member
Give 'em some Cerakoted Veprs in x54r and call it a day.
Panzerschwein
member
All of you who are recommending "sniper rifles" and 12 pound "tactical chassis system" rifles etc. don't really understand what these folks need a rifle for.
Give them an R700 BDL with a 20-24" bbl with a ferritic nitrocarburized (Tennifer, Melonite, etc.) finish and a lightweight fiberglass stock with a decent optic, or even just target sights. Maybe machine a stripper clip guide in the receiver. .308 Win/7.62x51mm chambering of course.
Give them an R700 BDL with a 20-24" bbl with a ferritic nitrocarburized (Tennifer, Melonite, etc.) finish and a lightweight fiberglass stock with a decent optic, or even just target sights. Maybe machine a stripper clip guide in the receiver. .308 Win/7.62x51mm chambering of course.
KansasSasquatch
Member
Sure I do. Remington could surely cut the barrel and rail down to save some weight (they already offer a 20" version rather than the longer 22-24"). Maybe even throw a Magpul MOE stock on it instead of the heavier PRS stock that comes on it. That tactical chassis 700 has a stainless barrel and action that's cerakoted and an anodized aluminum chassis. If the internal parts are similar then you probably won't find anything much more corrosion resistant.
Surely having Remington make some minor changes to an existing design that's currently in production would be cheaper than some company completely tooling up to make new Enfields. But still, with the way the Canadian government wants someone to hand over designs to Colt Canada, there's probably not much chance of any good design being settled upon.
JT-AR-MG42
Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 871
R.E. Post 14
The Australians were making them anyways. Don't know if they still are.
I do not understand the DND (whatever that is) bashing AIA though.
Maybe mine will break tomorrow, but so far, so good.
Simple solution would be to issue them like this.
(With a newer scope over the Weaver V-8 on mine.)
Just talk the Aussies into having both this one and the .308 they were making brought back into production, or brought up to their specs.
Since the carbine is the SK caliber, the Canadians could just strip ammo off the Russian troopers that surrender and the short barrel would come in handy for doing a
bulkhead to bulkhead search of captured Russian Nuclear Missile boats.
Seriously, if Colt Canada could get rights and equipment to build rifles like shown in the OPs link
http://www.casr.ca/mp-enfield.htm
then I will send in the dough to get one with the blue stock ordered now.
I like the iron sight capability on it better than the brown stocked one.
JT
The Australians were making them anyways. Don't know if they still are.
I do not understand the DND (whatever that is) bashing AIA though.
Maybe mine will break tomorrow, but so far, so good.
Simple solution would be to issue them like this.
(With a newer scope over the Weaver V-8 on mine.)
Just talk the Aussies into having both this one and the .308 they were making brought back into production, or brought up to their specs.
Since the carbine is the SK caliber, the Canadians could just strip ammo off the Russian troopers that surrender and the short barrel would come in handy for doing a
bulkhead to bulkhead search of captured Russian Nuclear Missile boats.
Seriously, if Colt Canada could get rights and equipment to build rifles like shown in the OPs link
http://www.casr.ca/mp-enfield.htm
then I will send in the dough to get one with the blue stock ordered now.
I like the iron sight capability on it better than the brown stocked one.
JT
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked