Many synthetic stock materials will not do well at minus 40. Laminate will hold up much better when it gets REALLY cold.
Last edited:
C-19 Canadian Ranger rifle will be available to the public
- Thread starter CanadaBoy
- Start date
Many synthetic stock materials will not do well at minus 40. Laminate will hold up much better when it gets REALLY cold.
Push feed. Basically a Remington 700 type bolt face.
Yup. A friend runs guided caribou hunts in the NWT. All the guides apparently now use CRF guns after an inuit guide was mauled by a polar bear, as they will feed in any orientation. Push feed guns aren't known to feed well when the rifle is upside down or the ejection port is angled downward.
When you are a NATO country looking for inter-operability and a common supply chain, you either buy the M1A1 Abrams or a Leopard variant. End of story. Making a domestic modern MBT in Canada would be economically absurd and a national scandal once the price were made public.
Similarly, Canada has not produced a military air interceptor or multi-role fighter since 1959. Tooling up for a unique design here, including developmental and supply chain costs, would be a gargantuan expense that would make F35 look like the expense of buying a double double at Timmy's.
The last small population commonwealth country to do something militarily "unique" was Australia when they built the Collins Class submarines. Now they are smarter and are buying a foreign Japanese product.
With small arms, small players can still afford to buy local. These new rifles are an insignificant expense, militarily.
So you saying that "how military type supply works: you have to have control of production" only applies to peanuts and insignificant expenses?
So with "control the production" phantom out of the picture. Why again do we have to buy LICENSE from Sako to make this slightly modified version of the budget Tikka while bolt action designs are most abundant and available for free for decades now?
Why Colt can make tooling to make Tikka clone, but can't make new Enfields with stainless barrels better stocks and god willing picatinny rails if needed? So we would have to buy most expensive Sako magazines together with the license?
I mean just look at it! This is horrid green coat of arms PAINTED on yellow stock, my eyes bleed just to look at it. Or that case... canadian tire got overstocked on junk plastic cases and had to liquidate whole shipment? All this looks like a joke, if not $28m of our money.
Green paint, my ss
So with "control the production" phantom out of the picture. Why again do we have to buy LICENSE from Sako to make this slightly modified version of the budget Tikka while bolt action designs are most abundant and available for free for decades now?
Why Colt can make tooling to make Tikka clone, but can't make new Enfields with stainless barrels better stocks and god willing picatinny rails if needed? So we would have to buy most expensive Sako magazines together with the license?
I mean just look at it! This is horrid green coat of arms PAINTED on yellow stock, my eyes bleed just to look at it. Or that case... canadian tire got overstocked on junk plastic cases and had to liquidate whole shipment? All this looks like a joke, if not $28m of our money.
Green paint, my ss
So by your exact same logic, what the heck is wrong buying small arms from a NATO nation? Every dollar counts, obviously, since it took them 60 years to replace these rifles. Maybe if you buy off the shelf Ruger Scouts or Tikka CTRs and cut the cost 60% the army could afford to replace them more often. Same with the sidearm procurement debacle. Buy Glocks for $600 a piece for God's sake.
The whole not relying on another country for our small arms is a ridiculous theory. If all of our major equipment is supplied by other NATO countries anyways our small arms can be too. Who cares if our supply chain for small arms parts gets cut, because it would also mean the supply chain got cut for our tanks, artillery and fighter jets. Why rely on other nations for important stuff and then get all stressed out over small arms?
Geez guys - way to read more into my post that what was there.
And IMHO, there is NOTHING wrong with being foreign. Most militaries do. The caveat, of course, is you would need to buy enough to ensure adequate supply in a long war.
Heck, I'm all for buying foreign ships at a fraction of the price of domestic. But like many things, the decisions are clearly often politically influenced.
And for "owlowl": I'm not a fan of this Tikka rifle. Go see my page 1 posts for what I think of it. I agree, something like a Mauser action would be a much better product in my view, but I don't control the Canadian Forces small arms procurement machine. A mauser would have been more expensive though - they are harder to manufacture well than a Tikka action, which is engineered for mass CNC mill production.
Apropos of nothing at all ... just to mention that the C3 wasn't built here and it was a pretty straight forward Mauser design (by Parker Hale) .... BUT .. I am all for keeping a small arms production line in production -- in Canada if at all possible... and I don't believe that the current choice is a bad one. Its not hard to second guess the guys (and gals?) that were involved with this procurement but I am confident they didn't just fall off a turnip truck! Our BIGGEST problem in Canada is we like to forget that our total National population (AND GDP) is LESS than the state of California ... and when you add up all our civil service over head (federal govt, 10 Provincial govt's, school boards etc etc etc ) its a wonder we could afford Cooey .22's for the Rangers!!
I'm not a military supply expert or anything, but I have been watching the news for some decades. You may need to talk to the citizens or former citizens of such unpopular states as Israel, South Africa, and Southern Rhodesia to find out why a nation's small arms should be made in-country. And even as much loved as Canada is, or we think it is, any small arms company can go bankrupt pretty quickly and with great finality, even the big ones. Take a look at Colt LLC for instance. With all their US government contracts, they presently exist practically on a day-to-day basis and it's rather good to have our own production here.
Canada tail
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
agreed. but they picked up this !@#t among all proposed. politically influenced indeed.
Look at Rhodesia, they were ostracized and sanctioned by their former allies (with the exception of SA.) During the Bush War they sure lacked all sorts of things to keep fighting. Fuel, airplane parts, APCs and parts for them. However they never really lacked small arms, or parts for them from everything I have read on the war, despite their FALs being foreign made.
I see the strategic importance of making war supplies in country, but if a country is small enough to have to rely on allies for the making of major military equipment like planes and tanks than it really doesn't matter where their small arms are made.
I had a high school teacher from Rhodesia, effectively a refugee, who used to get drunk with us and talkative on Friday nights. He talked a lot about life there and said that without South Africa supplying them small arms and parts, among many other things, they would have been done much sooner than they were and with a total blood bath, probably by a Cuban-led takeover (as I recall). I also believe that even with SA assistance, Rhodesia started making some of their own automatic firearms.
Looks-wise, I am thinking that the CZ has twice the looks that the Tikka has - but the laminate stock would be considerably more robust on the Tikka. Nevertheless, it is a lot of money for what a person is getting with this Tikka.
