Ranger Rifles to be on Sale in October

maple_leaf_eh said:
Don't you think someone who is paid to solve problems would have thought the same way as you? The contract is the end decision after a couple decades of staff work, admittedly in what look like a few false starts. The cargo cult notion of shipping containers of parts sloshing around the world's surplus market waiting for some staff officer to buy is not realistic. They already bought up what was reliably affordable. The No.4 has not been properly supportable for long enough that the system was forced to react. IMHO, this is as good a decision as any.

For a long time converted No.4 rifles were perfectly acceptable on military rifle ranges for civilian target shooters. About twenty years ago the New Zealand version of the NRA was ordered by the NZDF to not fire conversions on military ranges. The risk of stretched and overproofed actions, with no concept of firing logs or in-service monitoring was considered too great to allow continued use. The Kiwi sport shooters were hopping mad, but eventually had to play by someone else's rules. Can be converted is not the same as can be reliably converted.

I don't think there are any conventional drawings for No4s anywhere. The original rifles were produced in a craftsman-type work environment with sealed patterns, individual jigs and testing gauges. From reading between the lines in the references, the inspectors rejected more parts than any modern contract would tolerate. When the British sold the production line to Pakistan in the 1960's, they didn't sell a couple of DVDs of CADCAM files. They sold crates of notes, go-no go gauges, cutting tools and attachments for milling machines. We cannot apply modern manufacturing principles to the No.4 (ie have you ever looked at Khyber Pass gunsmith videos on Youtube?). Hence, one reason why the AIA was found not suitable.
Click to expand...

I was more commenting on the notion that the reason and cost justification for why we had to go with the $2700 Colt Canada made Tikka's was that this allowed for spares to be made when ever needed.

The Danes still use the even longer obsolete M1917 (Made obsolete in 1919) for the same type of use for their equivalent to the Rangers and replaced worn-out parts from new/recent local manufacture (like Barrels and stocks).

How many complex or custom fitted parts are the Rangers wearing out on their No.4 LE's?

Are the Rangers wearing out extremely robust and multiple war/battle tested rifles that quickly that the commercial sporting grade Tikka's are going to last longer? What the hell are they doing with their rifles that makes them go through the container loads of new in the wrap rifles they bought in the 1990's?

Are $2700 sporting rifles a smart replacement for the LE if they are going to treated very roughly or as disposable asserts? Maybe a sub $1000 bulk purchase deal of off the shelf rifle like a Ruger Gunsite scout would be more cost effective for the cash strapped Canadian military that can barely field a effective Navy or Airforce.

I guess we will see in the near future when those 6800 rifles get worn out/broken/scrapped and they ask for another $33 million for more new ones. I'm sure Colt will be happy either way unless they go bankrupt again in the meantime.

http://www.law360.com/articles/743212/colt-forced-to-rework-ch-11-plan-after-sciens-default

http://www.law360.com/articles/778392/remington-wins-review-of-army-rifle-contract-to-colt
 
Claven2 said:
The Sea king OEM is Sikorsky and they are still in business and doing quite well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I bet they've made a nice packet on not delivering Cyclones (yet) or with the required equipment (in 5 years). They're still way behind the guys who built the EH101 - they got hundreds of millions for supplying nothing.
 
Last edited:
mkrnel said:
I was more commenting on the notion that the reason and cost justification for why we had to go with the $2700 Colt Canada made Tikka's was that this allowed for spares to be made when ever needed.

The Danes still use the even longer obsolete M1917 (Made obsolete in 1919) for the same type of use for their equivalent to the Rangers and replaced worn-out parts from new/recent local manufacture (like Barrels and stocks).

How many complex or custom fitted parts are the Rangers wearing out on their No.4 LE's?

Are the Rangers wearing out extremely robust and multiple war/battle tested rifles that quickly that the commercial sporting grade Tikka's are going to last longer? What the hell are they doing with their rifles that makes them go through the container loads of new in the wrap rifles they bought in the 1990's?Are $2700 sporting rifles a smart replacement for the LE if they are going to treated very roughly or as disposable asserts? Maybe a sub $1000 bulk purchase deal of off the shelf rifle like a Ruger Gunsite scout would be more cost effective for the cash strapped Canadian military that can barely field a effective Navy or Airforce.

I guess we will see in the near future when those 6800 rifles get worn out/broken/scrapped and they ask for another $33 million for more new ones. I'm sure Colt will be happy either way unless they go bankrupt again in the meantime.

http://www.law360.com/articles/743212/colt-forced-to-rework-ch-11-plan-after-sciens-default

http://www.law360.com/articles/778392/remington-wins-review-of-army-rifle-contract-to-colt
Click to expand...

You would be surprised how fast abuse, neglect and rust can destroy a No. 4.
 
I see what you are saying but LE parts are expensive to make while tikka parts are designed to be cranked off in a CNC mill. I expect the price would have been even higher to make enough new parts for an enfield. Not to mention the enfield needed to have your WTs trained on the hand fitting involved in making one shoot well.

The Rangers also wanted optics and no good solutions were found for the no.4.

mkrnel said:
They only wanted a .308/7.62x51mm chambered rifle as replacement for the capable .303 No.4 LE as they know nobody has made commercial bolt action .303 rifles since the 1960's.

The whole reason to replace the .303 LE was given as they could not get replacement parts to keep the existing rifles in service. They do not need .308 LE's, they have production capacity to still make .303 ammo.

What I am saying is why did we not just ask Colt Canada to make the needed replacement parts to keep the current very capable LE still servicable and in service.

The Danish Slædepatruljen Sirius still use the M1917 as their service weapon, due to the high reliability of these bolt-action rifles in the harsh conditions of high Arctic Greenland and they replace parts like barrels when they are worn out.

Maybe that would have been a better use of taxpayer money then go with a $2700 commercial rifle that is going to get beat to hell and we have no idea how it will hold up to Ranger longterm use. Will they be able to hold up to prolonged abuse?

AIA is and example of the fact that LE's still can be made if needed, I am not saying we should use AIA rifles as that company also does not make them anymore anyhow.

You said that we need to ignore the cost of the new rifles because they will be able to make parts whenever needed and it gives the government control as it can still be made even if obsolete, a bit like how the situation is with the current issue LE rifle now. We already own the rights to make LE rifles or parts.
Click to expand...
 
Cyclone is a bag of snakes. But that is Canada's fault for a SOW that said "anything but eh101". Sikorsky is a decent company in good shape. But the ch148 is not their best effort.
 
tiriaq said:
You would be surprised how fast abuse, neglect and rust can destroy a No. 4.
Click to expand...

Or anything, for that matter. I would guess most military weapons (where a hard life would be expected) are looked at as disposable. This new rifle looks like something my young, very well off nephew (and a true gun-nut) would have selected. Common sense would not be part of his decision. Regarding "optics"- why would that be a factor in selection of a new Ranger rifle? The new rifle certainly looks cool with a big scope on it- almost sniper-like- but the Rangers aren't snipers, are they? I know it's pointless to bring up the No. 4 now that decisions have been made but every collector out there knows how easy it would have been to source hundreds of good, serviceable No. 4 rifles over the last 10 years. Probably more than enough to deal with the very small total requirements of the Rangers.

milsurpo (interested taxpayer)
 
milsurpo said:
Or anything, for that matter. I would guess most military weapons (where a hard life would be expected) are looked at as disposable. This new rifle looks like something my young, very well off nephew (and a true gun-nut) would have selected. Common sense would not be part of his decision. Regarding "optics"- why would that be a factor in selection of a new Ranger rifle? The new rifle certainly looks cool with a big scope on it- almost sniper-like- but the Rangers aren't snipers, are they? I know it's pointless to bring up the No. 4 now that decisions have been made but every collector out there knows how easy it would have been to source hundreds of good, serviceable No. 4 rifles over the last 10 years. Probably more than enough to deal with the very small total requirements of the Rangers.
milsurpo (interested taxpayer)
Click to expand...


After the supply of No. 4s in Canadian stores was exhausted, EALs were issued. When these were used up, surplus rifles were purchased. LBs first, then British No. 4 Mk. IIs, then ones from South Asia.
 
Claven2 said:
I see what you are saying but LE parts are expensive to make while tikka parts are designed to be cranked off in a CNC mill. I expect the price would have been even higher to make enough new parts for an enfield. Not to mention the enfield needed to have your WTs trained on the hand fitting involved in making one shoot well.

The Rangers also wanted optics and no good solutions were found for the no.4.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess the scope requirement would be hard with a No.4 unless they went with something like a Canadian made, bolt on, Addley Precision No.4 scope mount with rear peep sight built in -



I still think the best option for a new replacement rifle for the cash strapped Canadian military and Canadian taxpayers would be a sub $1000 stainless steel Ruger Gunsite Scout Ranger rifle in .308.

Canada should just approach Ruger for a bulk deal price for off the shelf or even custom stock fitted rifles, plus parts for Ruger rifles will be available for many decades to come.
 
buckbrush said:
Italy had several thousand 50's Longbranch rifles for sale several years ago . I think they ended up in the U.S. (of course)
Click to expand...

I think the last I heard was that they were still available.

Enf-4_00.jpg
a-Enf-4_exam_4.jpg
Enf-4-test_03.jpg
aaa-LB_01.jpg
Enf-otturatori_01.jpg
Enf-1_panorama2.jpg
Enf-4_01.jpg
aaa-alzo4_03.jpg
aaa-alzo4_01.jpg
baio-spike_03.jpg
 
When the Italian LB No.4 rifles came on the market several years ago, a friend of mine inquired about them. The asking price was $450.00 US and they would not guarantee matching bolts. You could pick up one in Canada back then at any Gunshow for about $200.00 Canadian. Even today, considering our low dollar with Duty & Shipping costs they are not a good deal.
 
Last edited:
JP said:
When the Italian LB No.4 rifles came on the market several years ago, a friend of mine inquired about them. The asking price was $450.00 US and they would not guarantee matching bolts. You could pick up one in Canada back then at any Gunshow for about $200.00 Canadian. Even today, considering our low dollar with Duty & Shipping costs they are not a good deal.
Click to expand...

Maybe if the Canadian Government was to buy the lot from the seller he would be more inclined to sell at a reasonable price as he is sitting on a large inventory and non producing capital outlay.
 
For the same reason we build ships in Halifax when buying Korean hulls would cost under half the price, there is NO WAY the government would source those guns abroad. Firearms manufacture has been deemed a strategic defence industry by ISED Canada. The procurement is exempt from international trade deals, so the Industrial and Technological Benefits policy applies (think Canadian version of the "Buy America" policy.

Have a look here if you feel like getting sleepy.

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/086.nsf/eng/00006.html

The Ruger was likely not selected, foremost, because they likely would not transfer the Intellectual Property to Colt Canada for domestic manufacture.

mkrnel said:
Yeah, I guess the scope requirement would be hard with a No.4 unless they went with something like a Canadian made, bolt on, Addley Precision No.4 scope mount with rear peep sight built in -



I still think the best option for a new replacement rifle for the cash strapped Canadian military and Canadian taxpayers would be a sub $1000 stainless steel Ruger Gunsite Scout Ranger rifle in .308.

Canada should just approach Ruger for a bulk deal price for off the shelf or even custom stock fitted rifles, plus parts for Ruger rifles will be available for many decades to come.
Click to expand...
 
mkrnel said:
Maybe if the Canadian Government was to buy the lot from the seller he would be more inclined to sell at a reasonable price as he is sitting on a large inventory and non producing capital outlay.
Click to expand...

As much as you may love the No.4 rifle, the majority of the Rangers did not want that option to be selected. The number of rangers that asked to retain the No.4 rifle was in the small minority.

For better or for worse, Canada has decided to retire the No.4 rifle and that is that.
 
Claven2 said:
As much as you may love the No.4 rifle, the majority of the Rangers did not want that option to be selected. The number of rangers that asked to retain the No.4 rifle was in the small minority.

For better or for worse, Canada has decided to retire the No.4 rifle and that is that.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, I have realised that is the path we are now set on but I am just throwing out my thoughts on how it seems like a excessive waste of our scare tax dollars and military funds when much more important things go ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom