Canadian Rangers and the No.4 rifle

Scarecrow said:
308 caliber AK's is what we should give them. Place a large order with Izmash and as a result be forced to like the Valmet M78, make it a legal hunting rifle.

1871.jpg
Click to expand...


I agree 100%. They are tough dependable hunting rifles.

Besides anyone that wants to hunt Polar bear with a .223 is silly IMHO.
 
Choice of .308 AK Is Worthwhile

As the above post states, the AK action in .308 would work well. The ammunition would be DND issue versus "another orphan round" that requires special manufacture as the .303 does now.
Keeping It Super Simple Eh! Ammunition re-supply could be a criticial factor in the case of an International Incident in Progress (i,e small force of Canadian Rangers besieged by foreign forces in Arctic and needing re-supply by air.
.308 Nato will be in the RN ammo lockers; will .303 be?
MOST importantly, the semi auto aspect gives the Canadian Ranger Force a better "Fighting Chance" in my opinion.
 
sonofpaleface said:
As the above post states, the AK action in .308 would work well. The ammunition would be DND issue versus "another orphan round" that requires special manufacture as the .303 does now.
Keeping It Super Simple Eh! Ammunition re-supply could be a criticial factor in the case of an International Incident in Progress (i,e small force of Canadian Rangers besieged by foreign forces in Arctic and needing re-supply by air.
.308 Nato will be in the RN ammo lockers; will .303 be?
MOST importantly, the semi auto aspect gives the Canadian Ranger Force a better "Fighting Chance" in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The Rangers are there to act as local guides for the regular forces. It was never intended that they be the front line of defense. Perhaps one day they will get a new rifle in a current NATO caliber, but right now funding for the Rangers is in about the same priority as the cadet leagues and the IOF.

Harper wanted to put Northern bases to claim our sovereignty, especially in the future likelihood that there may be other countries trying to claim the natural resources contained up there. But the reality is that the CF is already overstressed trying to maintain the status quo with the demands of Afghanistan....the North will have to take a backseat in the meantime.
 
Arctic Sovereignity: You Dont Know What You Have Until Its Gone EH!

As before, in the 21st Century, I percieve that the Canadian Rangers could be deployed with a rifle that gives them "better survivability" with a foreign force who may "just show up in the Arctic".

I am suggesting this strongly NOW versus on the basis of "After Action Reports" to come.

To add further, I will be studying the Canadian Senate's Report issued today about how well our Canadian Coasts are patrolled, monitored and if necessary defended.

The context in my opinion is like the way in which Canadian Police Forces were rearmed with self loading pistols with magazine reloading to replace the revolvers and speed loaders as standard police issue.

Our DND Budget along with our Government's represent our Priorities in Dollars and Sense.

We did deploy the Iltis jeep to Afghanistan as well as green camo uniforms initially. The "experts" said that tanks were not necessary.

Canada's North is an International Theatre of Contention to Come.

It is not there now as an active theatre. What I am writing here is my own observation or "hunch".

It is interesting to play out your "hunches" based on the information at hand.

For example when I wrote my original post a week or so ago and made up the 2010-2015 fiction Mr Mario Dumont was not a likely candidate to be the 2010 Premier of Quebec.

Is it fair to say that since Monday might this fiction might be "much more believable" in 2010 terms?

Is it fair to say that the Canadian Rangers are essentially in a reconnaissance or scouting role which is about to have much more international scrutiny or relevance than before when the Arctic Icecap melts more and more?

Or are Al Gore and David Suzuki just "funning with us".

HOW WELL then do we want our Reconnaissance Forces to be armed for their patrols in 2007 to 2012 ?

Since they are armed do we want them to have real survivability in an international firefight perhaps not of their own choosing.

Who woulda thought that Iran would seize fifteen British Sailors and use them for propaganda purposes today?

Do we want the Canadian Rangers to be "abduction resistant" when one or more vessels of unknown foreign origin "just show up in our Arctic"? or not?

As one of them radios back to Ottawa on the satellite phone how many shots do we want to hear before the phone goes dead or do we really want a "fighting chance" for the transmissions to continue for some time until reinforcements or air cover can arrive?

Are we really saying by continuing to issue them obsolete kit for any number of reasons that we continue to have "reasonably rationalized" Ii.e DND and Govt of Canada budget priorities for the Canadian Rangers are the same as for RCAC; cant issue semi auto or even newer bolt actions as "too expensive"; DND is stretched tooooo thin with Afgahistan Mission, changes will be made as budget permits (think 2025 eh!)

Token resistance takes on a very personal perspective when it becomes a case of contesting a confrontation where one side has only turnbolt rifles versus the others semi automatic 30 round magazine fed and/or fully automatic weapons.

Is "Ice Station Zebra" really so far fetched in todays world?

To conclude, WHY NOT EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED.
 
Last edited:
IMHO (for what it's worth) every functioning weapon the CFC takes off a dead taliban, should be sent back to Canada, cleaned up, converted to semi auto, and re-issued to our Rangers. :D
 
I think they should be issued the best that can be bought just like the Regular forces should be issued the same. :)

In some remote locations they are the only military presence so they should be treated and armed as such. :)

Perhaps issuing the M14 would be good because like the M1 Garand they were ment to fire when in really cold weather the trigger unit doesnt freeze up and its one of the very few rifles which were designed with that in mind. :)

Dimitri
 
A korean vet told me that the Garands did freeze up and the US soldiers would pee on the action to free it up whereas when an Enfield froze, they'd just boot #### it to get it working again. Anyone else ever see or hear of this?
 
jjwelin said:
Why bother converting them.... The Rangers are part of the military, and therefore exempt of the Firearms Act.... Give 'em full auto.

If they are willing to do arctic soverignty patrols, let em rock n' roll!
Click to expand...

Awsome If the govment did that I'd sell everything move north of 60, and become a ranger.:shotgun:
 
Not all Rangers are "North of 60". As has been pointed out, Rangers act as local guides, and have experience and land skills in their areas. They do not receive combat training, nor are expected to have combat involvement. As far as Rangers having a confrontation with an aggressor group in the Arctic, Rangers do not engage in ongoing patrol activity in organized groups on a day in day out basis. Individual Rangers may well spend a lot of time on the land while hunting. Neither active duty regular nor reserve soldiers take their service rifles home, with ammunition. There is no way that members of an organization as loosely controlled as a Ranger Patrol would ever be allowed to take home modern arms with ammunition.
The CF regularly praise Rangers for the valuable assistance they provide.
 
jjwelin said:
Why bother converting them.... The Rangers are part of the military, and therefore exempt of the Firearms Act.... Give 'em full auto.
Click to expand...

Token resistance takes on a very personal perspective when it becomes a case of contesting a confrontation where one side has only turnbolt rifles versus the others semi automatic 30 round magazine fed and/or fully automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

If they are willing to do arctic soverignty patrols, let em rock n' roll![/QUOTE]

I think they should be issued the best that can be bought just like the Regular forces should be issued the same.
Click to expand...

every functioning weapon the CFC takes off a dead taliban, should be sent back to Canada, cleaned up, converted to semi auto, and re-issued to our Rangers
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
You guys are dreaming. In all the years that the Rangers have existed, there has never been a shot fired at anything more threatening than a caribou, and maybe a polar bear or two. The North is not a realistic threat at this point, and a recent report verifies this. The Rangers are not a recconaissanc force, they are not a fighting force, they are not trained to the levels of regular force, they do not even come close to the training of reserve force.
Understand that I am in no way belittling what the Rangers are and what they know. I have worked with them North of the Arctic circle and they are great at what they are supposed to do....guide and aid the regular army in arctic survival.
 
Regardless of what the mission has been, don't plan on it to staying the same, the world is taking an interest in our Northern lands, we are going to have to change how we do business.
 
Colin said:
Regardless of what the mission has been, don't plan on it to staying the same, the world is taking an interest in our Northern lands, we are going to have to change how we do business.
Click to expand...

I agree and thankfully so does Stephen Harper.
 
"The (21st Century) Times They Are AChanging!" (Dylan, 1966)

Bob Dylans song comes to mind here as I do agree with the immediately preceding posts.

As for what commendable service the Canadian Rangers have done "up to now" that is beyond question. As I recall the BC Coasts and the Arctic or Canada's Coasts were patrolled since WWII up until September 11th, 2001 with essentially hunting rifles..like the BC rangers had as WWII issue the Winchester 30-30.

In the 1950s as the No 4 Mk I* was phased out it replaced those arms.

The focus of this post some fourteen pages ago is to examine the reasons why this rifle still persists as Canadian Ranger issue some 50 years later.

Is it fair to say that since 1945 there are any number of geopolitical changes along with climate changes that have irrevocably CHANGED our Arctic Patrol Priorities as we begin over six decades later the 21st Century.

To me this post topic could be replaced with one from a 110 years ago when the Snyder Enfield was still Canadian Issue versus some of those "new fangled Long Lees or even SMLEs"..altho it seems the Ross Rifle got in the way of the latters immediate adoption.

Better put a magazine cutoff on the magazine so the troops dont waste ammunition!

The 1939-2001 period will be viewed in my opinion by History as a "Very Benign Period In Canada's Arctic Sovereignity Matters".

Consider the voyages of the St Roche in WWII or the HMCS Labrador in 1979.

This IS Now. Is it fair to say that Countries like Norway have already shown that they have a Real and Abiding National Interest In Resources and Lands Deemed to Be Soverign Canadian Territory.

Check out the front page of the Globe and Mail today.

One woman Member of the fiftheen Member RN Boarding party is offered up for propaganda purposes.

Is it fair to say that the fifteen RN Sailors and Marines 'didnt plan of being in combat" let alone be abducted to be used as propaganda pawns by a Foreign Regime like Iran?

Do we really want in the 21st Century to have the same dynamics in place waiting to be activated by any Number of Nations..which may act out their Rogue State Politic on Our Soil or Waters.

To conclude, consider the words of our Canadian National Anthem.

How many resources should we or can we commit on a National Basis to "Stand On Guard For Canada" in a "reasonably robust way".

IF I jumped over to the Action Shooting Forum is it fair to say that the expression, "Get Big or Go Home" would be front and centre?

"Yes Virginia, IF you really wanted to, you could issue and keep track of semi auto or even full auto weapons for the Rangers".

You would "have to want to though". You Really Would Want to "Get There from Here".

I percieve that "We Can Get There From Here".

Our Canadian Ranger Scouts serving as Civilian Volunteers may indeed need better training, more Govt of Canada support, or dare to say, "A Bigger Vision of the 21st Tasks At Hand to Protect and Defend Our Canadian Arctic Soverignity".

Dare to dream that we would give such a National Mission the same priority as the Wheat Board or funding for Women's Groups by the Heritage Minister.

"The World As It Is" says that the No. 4 Mk I* is "good enough for the Rangers".

"The 2st Century World As I see it" tells me it is not given the Tasks the Canadian Rangers may be faced with in their 2007 -2017-2027 Arctic Sovereignity Patrols.

Would like to have a shorter timeline but I thought I would adapt to the present DND procurement process.

To conclude, in my opinion what the Canadian Rangers could use or need is what Col Jeff Cooper called a "Scout Rifle".

It would be a five/ten shot/twenty shot mag bolt action rifle with an indestructible optic sight as well as a fibreglass stock. Easy to maintain.

Alternatively let the Rangers buy at a substantial discount some Norinco M-14 clones with fibreglass stocks and have available the removable scope mounts.

Or to "Keep It Super Simple" issue a "semi auto only" version of the C-7 or Colt Hbar. The .222 or 223 has been used as a hunting round for years in the Arctic, particularly on seals. For larger game see the Norinco M-14 clone in .308.
 
Last edited:
As has been pointed out, Rangers are NOT soldiers. We don't have a need for AK's or C7's or the like.

The No4 fills all possible needs for us. I like Riflechair's suggestion of rebarreling to 7.62 Nato, personally.

As also pointed out, we're not just "up north" or in the Arctic. Though I suppose relative to Southern Ontario we are all way up north.;) There are more Rangers south of 60 than north of it.
 
Stevo said:
As has been pointed out, Rangers are NOT soldiers. We don't have a need for AK's or C7's or the like.

The No4 fills all possible needs for us. I like Riflechair's suggestion of rebarreling to 7.62 Nato, personally.

As also pointed out, we're not just "up north" or in the Arctic. Though I suppose relative to Southern Ontario we are all way up north.;) There are more Rangers south of 60 than north of it.
Click to expand...

Why would 7.62 be better? Just the standard round issue for resupply or is it actually that much better of a performer? Since IVI still manufactures the .303 round for you Rangers...
The Enfield in 7.62 is not as good a rifle from my limited experience of owning two of them. The feed reliability isn't quite 100%. If someone were shooting at me or a bear attacking, I'd want the sucker to work...
 
.303 works fine for me. Rebarreling to 7.62 would serve a couple purposes.

1) to simplify ammo supply. Though they'd still have to source SP for us.

2) Many of our rifles are serviceable but worn. Rebarreling would get them into depot level maintenance and bring them back up to spec all around.

New rifles or rebarreling is not going to happen, IMO. The CF has much more important things to spend money on. As long as they keep sending us ammo for them, the No4's will still be in service in 50 years.
 
Senate Report Puts the No.4's deployment in perspective eh!

On Thursday March 29th, 2007 the Globe and Mail published a synopsis of the Senates Report on Canada's Security on its Coasts. It did point out that there are only a very few RCMP Officers tasked with Border Security on the Great Lakes. I will be summarizing that article here and relating it to the posts shown here before includingt the repeated point that Many Rangers Serve South of "North of 60".

IF nothing else what the Globe article shows is that there should be, in my opinion, "Many More Rangers" for some of the Canadian Security Tasks the Senate Members identified in their report to Parliament.

Also, based on the repeated posts here that clearly state that Canadian Rangers are NOT Soldiers, is it fair to say that they are a type of Militia or is it fair to say paramilitary force that can be mobilized in Canada's interests?

IF I got out Janes reference would I find that the Canadian Rangers are listed as a supplement to the Regular Force or the Reserves?

I also recall that at CFSAC 2001 and 2002 they operated as a Unit on the Connaught Ranges and were at the Ranges for several weeks on what is essentially a Military Training Base.

I agree that they are not Soldiers; however I perceive that when they are carrying around their No.4s wearing their red t shirts and red hats they are not Civilians either.

For example at CFSAC 2001 and 2002 the 40 or 69 Rangers spent weeks practising and then competing in Service Rifle. They shot at Fig II targets the same as the Regular and Reserve Force Members present...in effect shooting in a "Soldier's Key Skills Match".

For instance, what Regulations govern their issue, possesion of individual actions with their No.4's?

Is it fair to say that the Canadian Rangers practise one key military drill and skill that is Service Rifle Markmanship to hit a fig 11 target consistently from 100 to 500 metres including snap shots and run downs?

Is it fair to say that the Canadian Rangers enjoy some degree of privileged access on a Canadian Military Base? For example when I stood in line with them at Connaught for lunch in 1998 or 2001 or 2002 I dont recall they had to purchase a meal ticket day after day.

My guess is that the 40 or 60 or more of them in 1998-2001- 2002 when I attended cFSAC as a DCRA Civilian competitor didnt have to pay for their DND Connaught tent accommodation either.

I do recall that in the past few years some Canadian Rangers were on what appeared to my laymans understanding to be Combined Military Style maneuvres and training in the Summer at a US Base where they apparently practised military skills and set up a Canadian Ranger display at its gate.

I think the History Channel did a review of those USA training drills involving the Canadian Rangers with the US National Guard and/or US Army.

As a Civilian I dont think I could participate in the same manner IF I "just showed up" at the US Base with a red tshirt and hat and a No.4..303. "good to go".

These are just my initial impressions; I hope the Rangers here on CGN will educate me eh!

Is it fair to say that the Canadian Rangers are "Canada's Minutemen"?

The Canadian Rangers live on the land, hunt and fish and when the "whistle blows" pick up their rifle and double bladed axe and head off into the boonies or Arctic tundra or even on the shore of Lake Superior?

Indeed why do they need a No. 4 Mk I* to "go to Canadian Ranger Work" or rather to give freely their Duty and Honour to their Country?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom