Canadian Rangers and the No.4 rifle

2007 Sovereignity Patrols: Rangers As Soldiers EH

Thanks Stevo for the link which is very instructive here as to the question I am putting forward:

Are Canadian Rangers Soldiers or Not? Most especially are they not assuming a "Soldier Role" most particularly when they take part in SOV PATS.

General Rick Hillier referred to the fine work of the Canadian Rangers integrated in the activities of Canadas Regular Armed Forces work in SOV PATS this week in his speech to the Canada Club that appeared on CPAC yesterday.

My previous post pointed out the various perceptions I have from 1998-2001-2002 that the Canadian Rangers are "Soldiers" both as I have come to understand "What a Soldier Is" within my own experience and in the several dictionary meanings of the term.

To be clear here, lets look at the www.dictionary.com definitions of "soldier" as it may apply or not to the assumed 2007 roles of Canadian Rangers, most especially in their SOV PAT works:

1) a person who serves in an army;
2) a person engaged in military service;
3) a person of military skill or experience...
4) a person who intends or serves in any cause (SOV PAT)

Is it fair to say that within these definitions and most especially nos 3 and 4 that the Candian Rangers on SOV PAT expeditions meet those two definitions?

To continue, the site www.rangers.forces.gc.ca notes these aspects of the Canadian Rangers continuing service (see defn #4 above)

quote: In terms of "(R)egular" Canadian (Armed) Forces training Canadian Rangers participate in marksmanship (ie,attend CFSAC as a group, live for several weeks on a DND Military Training Base) and learn the history and traditions of the Canadian Forces.

See definition # 3 above is this respect above.

A most essential "soldier skill" is riflery eh! What I saw at the Connaught Ranges in 1998 or 2001 or 2002 and would see presumably again in September 2007 at Connaught is that Canadian Rangers can consistently take aim ,fire and hit x ten shots a Fig 11 target at 500 metres in rapid fire with a No. 4 Mk I* .303.

Is it fair to say Stevo that such a repeated demonstration would in effect "demonstrate a military skill or experience"?

I am not a lawyer but I perceive that the "Soldier Shoe Fits" here, both in the "Government of Canada Armed Forces ISSUE Canadian Ranger boots on the ground" and most especially in another one of the www.rangers.forces.gc.ca paragraphs as well:

quote: Some Canadian Rangers also conduct inspections of North Warning System (NWS) sites to determine if they have incurred any damage. Others (Rangers) are responsible for conducting Sovereignity Patrols (SOV PATS) of Canada's remote coastal areas.

Is it fair to say that IF there was a plane crash in the Arctic that the Canadian Rangers would cordon it off and prevent looting of the site backed up by standing on guard with those 1950s era Long Branch .303s to make the "no looting" point?

Is it fair to say Stevo that the Canadian Rangers are, in effect, "Soldiers By Defintion" as above in definitions # 3 and # 4?

Maybe we need to check with General Rick Hillier eh!

In his speech this week to the Canada Club it certainly seemed to me in the Generals remarks shoed he does view the Canadian Rangers as an integral part of the Canadian Armed Forces as reconnaissance scouts.

Indeed the Canadian Rangers link you gave me is on the Government of Canada with Canadian Armed Forces Crest- DND type web site.

The Question Remains Stevo, do the Canadian Rangers such as yourself view yourself or themselves as "Soldiers" as per definitions # 3 and # 4 above?

Does the "Soldier Shoe Definitions # 3 and # 4" FIT or NOT when Canadian Rangers boots are on the ground in SOV PAT Expeditions.

General Hillier mentioned in his SOV PAT comments about a number of skidoos "breaking down and presenting some challenges"

Whose skidoos are out there on their SOV PAT Expeditions?

What Government of Canada ISSUE Skidoo is there to accompany all those Army boots on them both of the Regular Force as well as those of the Canadian Rangers?

Most especially, in the 10,000 to 1 event likelihood that a Canadian Armed Forces SOV PAT expedition accompanied and guided by Canadian Rangers encounters in 2007 or 2010 or 2015 and beyond a Foreign Armed Force on a geological expedition or some other activity in what it considers "their turf versus Canadas" ,will the Canadian Rangers accompanying the Regular Force on that SOV PAT be expected to "return fire" if that SOV PAT expedition is fired upon?

As before there is the example today of how Iran has abducted 15 British RN Marines and Sailors who were "trespassing" according to Iran.

IF that ever happened in my science fiction type wanderings, how would the Canadian Rangers identify themselves on board the Foreign Submarine or Helicopter as they were whisked off for "tea and interrogation"?
 
Last edited:
It depends how you define 'soldier'.
Rangers are not "Combat Soldiers" in the traditional sense.
We do not go to boot camp but we do receive 1 week basic recruit training.
NCO's receive 1 week basic leadership training
We practice drill
We follow the chain of command
We salute Officers
We are issued service rifles & Ammunition
We are issued a garrison uniform
We are a sub-component of the Cdn Armed Forces Reserve
We are not contractors
We swear an oath to the Queen and to Canada

The Oxford definition of Militia is: A military force, especially one consisting of civilians trained as soldiers and available to supplement the regular army in an emergency.

So are we soldiers? No we're not soldiers.

I define a soldier as a combat soldier
So in that sense we are not soldiers

Are we Militia? No we're not Militia

Rangers are not going to supplement the regular or primary reservist soldiers in case of War. Nor do we operate outside of Canada National Boundaries.

With that in mind there is no need to supply a Ranger with modern combat equipment - its not within our Mandate.

I hope this clarifies this thread on Rifles for Rangers. Lee Enfields are the perfect wilderness self defence weapon for us.
 
World War II B.C. Rangers Were a Home Guard Eh

As I recall, in British Columbia in World War II, the B.C. Rangers patrolled looking for intrusions by the Japanese Imperial Army, Navy or Air Force.
Every 30-30 that could be found was issued to them and they did practice military type drills to perform a section attack or defence.

Mandates come and go eh! My interest in this thread is beyond the 1947-2207 era of the Canadian Rangers.

The "part that doesnt fit" is the practice of having the Canadian Rangers compete in CFSAC if in effect they are not being trained to fucntion as in effect a Militia like group in case of a National Emergency of some sort.

At CFSAC the Canadian Rangers are firing at Fig 11 targets not an anatomical polar bear "wilderness defence" scenario.

For instance, lets suppose a Arctic Sovereignity Patrol was fired upon or was to be taken prisoner at gunpoint as in the Iran - RN Navy Marines and Sailors example?

Would the Canadian Rangers be able to proclaim some spontaneous "horsd'combat" status at that instance in a SOV PAT Expedition and simply lay down their No.4 .303s as non-combatants and proclaim their Canadian Civilian Status with a passport?

Inquiring minds wanna know BEFORE such an unlikely event but the "Expect the Unexpected" always comes up..like a BC Ferry being an entire fourteen minutes off course to strike an island and end in the drowning of two passengers or two passengers falling overboard from a cruise ship and it taking four plus hours to recover them from the sea.

Then there remains the unanswered questions from the Mayerthorpe incident when four fully trained RCMP Constables were gunned down by one insane rifleman.

Is it fair to say that in respect to the Mayerthorpe Tragedy that more RCMP tactical training or better RCMP equipment would have "helped" avert the extent of the Tragedy?

Expect the Unexpected seems to be a good idea after 911.

Dare to imagine the "unthinkable" eh!

Truth frequesntly is stranger than fiction. Some recent examples come to mind.

There some recent ones to be sure with "more to come".

"Before the Actual Facts" of the giant BC ferrry running aground at full speed on an island reef with no one at its wheel for fourteen minutes or the miraculous survival of the two passengers for four hours in shark infested waters or the four Mounties KIA at a Alberta Farm..these events were,is it fair to say,

"Unimagineable"..

Perhaps as "Unimagineable" as a 2010 Canadian Ranger SOV PAT Expediton being fired upon I suppose?

This post is my own declaration for whatever it may be worth that better equipment is needed for the Canadian Rangers IF they are to remain an valuable and enduring integral part of SOV PAT Expeditions anywhere along Canada's tens of thousands of miles of coastline from Sea to Sea to Sea.

A Canadian Ranger Group may be the ONLY ones to intercept some terrorist organization financing its operations with gun running or drug trafficking or trying to smuggle armaments into Canada at some remote location.

I recall that in WWII the nazis set up a remote weather station in Labrador that stayed there for years undiscovered and aided the nazis in sinking a lot of Allied Ships.

Its in the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. Imagine! A remotely unmanned weather station in 1942 complete with vacuum tubes!

Imagine what can happen some nearly 70 years later!

Then there was the Battle of the St Lawrence where fishing villages were fired upon and the locals were tasked with finding foreign agents in their midst.

No training involved eh.

In my opinion the major concern for the 2007-2017 Mandate for the Canadian Rangers could be increased budgets for more training or recruiting efforts to increase enrolment to patrol Canada's Southern Coasts along the Great Lakes.

Todays Globe and Mail has Senator Colin Kenny's concerns that our Canadian Borders are Very Much at Risk both along the BC Coast and the East Coast as well as the Great Lakes.

Are 5,000 or so Rangers enough for ALL of Canada??

The Arctic Sovereignity is one aspect of the Canadian Rangers works; however is fair to say that much remains to be done to close up the porous nature of our Southern Coasts?

"Peace, Order and Good Government" is 24/7 EH!
 
Last edited:
Riflechair, very well explained.

(edited for politeness:redface: ) buckbrush, please don't mention "Mohawk Warriors" again in a thread discussing law-abiding, duty-minded, Canadian citizens.

sonofpaleface,
Rangers shooting a competion at fig. 11's is meaningless. I shoot at B-27's and that doesn't make me a cop.

Repeat, we are not trained to have any kind of combat role nor would be ever be sent into that kind of situation other than as local guides or SME's.
 
Last edited:
War Measures Act Means "Never Say Never Eh"

This post probably will conclude my comments here.

I am going to examine two key quotes from Riflechair and Stevo:

Riflechair:
Rangers are not going to supplement the regular primary reservist soldiers in case of War..There is no need to supply a Ranger with modern combat equipment - it is not within our mandate;

Stevo:
Repeat, we are not trained to have any kind of combat role nor would we ever be snet into that kind of situation other than as local guides of SMEs.

For Riflechair's statement, I would point out that that was indeed the original "raison d'etre" of the 1942 era Pacific Coast Militia Rangers as the History - Canadian Rangers on the www.rangers.forces.gc.ca documents:

The Pacific Coast Militia Rangers were initially formed in 1942
following the shelling of British Columbia by a Japanese submarine.
The role of these Rangers was constant surveillance and
immediate local defence in an emergency situation pending the
deployment of Regular Force troops.

Can we "100% guarantee" that such an event involving another Nation could or would not ever occur? It seems unlikely doesnt it but then 911 was too until it was reality.

Yes it would be as unlikely that a group of young men from Toronto would train as urban guerrillas in the woods near Casino Rama in Ontario as they make plans later thwarted by an informer in their group that they would seize Members of Parliament as hostages.

Or did that already happen?

Both Stevo's and Riflechair's comments shown again here could also be viewed within the again shall we agree the very unlikely Declaration of the War Measures Act in Canada.

Within my own lifetime I can remember it being declared TWICE and the resultant conditions when a "full course press" was required.

Indeed, the ultimate irony here for me is that during the 1950s Cold War Period my Kenner Collegiate Cadet Corps trained for weeks and came to know how to carry out a Section Attack with Bren Guns and No. 4 .303s.

To paraphrase one favourite quote here on CGN, "It would be better that the Canadian Rangers be issued 21st Century combat rifles and not need them than to need them (in extremis) and not have them".

My boots are not on the Arctic or BC Grounds so I will by necessity defer to both Stevo and Riflechairs estimations here.

I would also note that whether you shoot at a Fig 11 in DCRA NSCC/CFSAC or a B-27 in PPC the REAL question could be "Can you as a Canadian Civilian shoot as well or possibly better as the Canadian Ranger or the RCMP Constable standing beside you can?".

That accomplishment shooting shoulder to shoulder doesnt make you either a Canadian Ranger or an RCMP Constable. However, it can show you that you can as a Civilian duplicate or perhaps even better their professional standard of demonstrated marksmanship competence as for example, in CFSAC Service Rifle or Service Pistol or CPCA Duty Pistol Match.

Oh yes, now I remember.

The Canadian Rangers are not issued pistols either.

Guess they wont ever need one eh!
 
Last edited:
sopf,
You're right, you can never say anything is a certainty. However we're not at war, there aren't enemy subs patrolling the coasts ready to shell us. When the PCMR was formed the situation was completely different as was their mission.

The Canadian Rangers are not issued pistols either.

Guess they wont ever need one eh!
Click to expand...

I can't see a reason to have them. Unless it's to put broken down quads and snowmobiles out of their misery. I suggested to our WO that we should have a Bren, but he wouldn't buy that either.;)
 
Last edited:
A Bren or Two Would Be Great for SOV PAT

I agree Stevo; a Bren or two would be worthwhile to have when out for SOV PAT 100s of kms on the Arctic Ice Cap. Might help a relatively small force make either a strategic withdrawl or repell superior numbers in one of those "Never Say Never" Times.
 
SOPF yes you are corect
PCMR were to a large extent considered to be MILITIA
They were trained how to use Sten Guns, blow up bridges and up rail way lines, send intelligence while in occupied Canada.

Modern Rangers are not really the same breed - it was a time of Gobal Conflict. We are trained for a different application. In general terms modern Canadian Rangers are the eyes and ears in rural communities. We have reported countless situations where Cdn Sovereignty may have been intruded on in locations you would never expect (sometimes actic but often west coast). I am not permitted to elaborate any further except to say that our current mandate (although perceived to be antiquated) still has a place in the Defence of Canada.

If you have a passion for this type of thing we could use a few good people. I am not against recruiting for the cause. We need GOOD people not braggards or lazy asses. We need devoted volunteers able to make a difference and strengthen your local Patrol (Not Weaken It). To quote President Kennedy - "Ask not what your Country can do for you - Ask what you can do for your Countrty". That pretty much summarizes what the Canadian Ranger is supposed to encompass. An honourable and respected member of your local community.

Please visit www.canadianranger.net and have a loof for yourself. This website was built by Rangers for Rangers. Our message forum is the best [place for this type of discussion.

Additionally, here are a few videos that may help you decide whether or not Rangers is "Up Your Alley". You are obviously passionate about the defence of Canada and assisting your local community. For the rest of you CGN'ers seriosly consider the Rangers. I see most of you as concerned and responsible Canadians and where better to recruit competative marksmen well versed with vinmtage service rifles than here? You do need to be physically capable however....

Enjoy
PS: I appologize for my spelling. I am a terrible typist.

It will likely be best to RIGHT CLICK these URLS's and "Save Target As" onto your hard drive to best see these mini-movies. Best Regards
Richard

Exercise YESTERYEAR
http://canadianranger.sslpowered.com/video/Exercise_Yesteryear.WMV
61 MB 2004 - Offshore FTX Terrace Patrol & Coast Guard + Auxilliary

Terrace Recruiting Video ONE
http://canadianranger.sslpowered.com/movies/terrace_patrol_recruiting_video.WMV
10.6 MB 2006

Terrace Patrol Recruiting Video TWO
http://canadianranger.sslpowered.com/movies/Hai_Lake.WMV
4.5 MB 2006

Terrace Rangers and Friends
ROGER RANGERS
http://rodandgun.sslpowered.com/video/BLACKPOWDER.WMV
12MB 2007

Terrace Rangers and Members of the Terrace Rod & Gun Club
VINTAGE MILITARY RIFLE CHAMPIONSHIP
http://rodandgun.sslpowered.com/video/vintage.WMV
23MB 2007
 
Last edited:
This seems like the perfect chance for a conservative government to build a new Long branch armoury and rebuild our arms industry and provide our troops ,rangers and citizens with quality canadian made rifles. I am not holding my breath though.
 
Gun Plumbers

Calum said:
Sorry to go off topic abit but...

Are Canadian Army Weapons Techs under the badge of an Engineer company? Or are they Infantry? I'd like to go into the Army Reserves, and work on rifles, but I'm rather fond of the Infantry side of things.
Click to expand...

Calum go to your local reserve unit and find out where the SERVICE BATTALION IS. Because the weapons techs will fall under Service Bn. Go get em boy the army could always use a damn good gun nut to maintain our fleet of weapons. :canadaFlag: :canadaFlag: :canadaFlag:
 
what

Stevo said:
Why replace an obsolete rifle with an inferior obsolete rifle that's sat in a salt mine for 50 years? I'll keep my issue No4, thanks.
Click to expand...

You guys don't make sense sometimes. Here you are talking about replacing the Very Fine No. 4 with a BS civvy Mod 70 something something... A civvy pattern rifle I think you all agree won't take the beating that the No. 4's currently go through, right. So honestly what is wrong with a battle proven k98 Mauser in 8mm. The round is, if not more powerfull than a .303, The k98 action is probably the best bolt action design out there, and the unit as a whole is very tough just like it's counter part the No. 4, I'm just saying that if Germany had rangers and supplied them with a simple old military rifle , well I think it would be the k98. So why can't a ranger use it?

For a semi military organization like the Rangers lets just supplement them with K98'S not totally replace the LE, but you all want a simple cheap realiable cold weather bolt action politcally correct rifle to fill the gaps.... WELL. Holy s**t batman, the k98 is a damn good rifle.

Reality sucks, but the Rangers will not be getting FNC1's, or C7's and civvy mod what evers are too expensive. So like good Canadians we will keep the current fleet of LE, in operation as long as possible. A fleet of similar vintage bolt action rifles will do just fine. Hell you can even buy those Norwegian re-barrelled k98's in 30.06 from JP's

AND NO ONE OUT THERE BETTER CHALLANGE THE BEAR STOPPING POWER OF 30.06!:D
 
I think we would more likely end up with M305's from norinco. The price is right ,
it shoots a newer military round that is suitable for bear and other large animals.
I would like to see some of the Rangers with at least a semi auto in case we have to defend our land in the arctic against Denmark,the US or even China(that would make the M305 ironic as well) I have heard that several indian bands have purchased quantities of M305's for similar use as the Rangers.
 
K98ACTION said:
Calum go to your local reserve unit and find out where the SERVICE BATTALION IS. Because the weapons techs will fall under Service Bn. Go get em boy the army could always use a damn good gun nut to maintain our fleet of weapons. :canadaFlag: :canadaFlag: :canadaFlag:
Click to expand...


Thanx good tip. :)
 
If militarily obsolete rifles are going to be acquired for Ranger issue, there is no reason to buy anything other than No. 4s.
If there had been any interest in a bolt action military 7.62mm, FN made Israeli 98s could have been purchased. Whether buying from Israel would have been politically acceptable is an open question.
If a semi auto 7.62mm rifle were desired, M-14s could be acquired from the US. Easy enough to delete the tang. M305s would not pass QC standards, and are only available in batches assembled from existing stocks of parts. Buying military goods from China could also be a political problem.
At one time, there was consideration given to buying a modified Ruger Mk. II stainless. Biggest obstacle was price, and the 5 000 minimum purchase quantity.
As far as ruggedness and durability go, the No. 4 remains a superior rifle. I've also seen a lot of them rapidly ruined by neglect and abuse. The No. 4 remains the best choice, even if rifles have to be acquired from surplus stocks.
 
K98Action,
Your bias is showing through. I never suggested replacing the No4's with sporting rifles.

I'll stand by my statement that the K98 would be a step backwards from the No4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom