Canadian Rangers and the No.4 rifle
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
I'm in agreement with Stevo, the No. 4 Lee-Enfield is a better rifle then the Mauser 98's. 
The No.4 has better sights especially if is sporting the old "Micrometer" Mk1 sight, it has a 10 round magazine, the bolt throw is nicer in my opinion as well as the fact its near bullet proof from the veterans I've met with in the past and they talked about the rifle they were issued.
Dimitri
The No.4 has better sights especially if is sporting the old "Micrometer" Mk1 sight, it has a 10 round magazine, the bolt throw is nicer in my opinion as well as the fact its near bullet proof from the veterans I've met with in the past and they talked about the rifle they were issued.
Dimitri
I love the K98 but double the Mag capacity,faster firing and a cartridge that is common in canada all make the No4 a better choice. At the local gun shop in PA
(and I am sure in every canadian town) their are half a dozen sporterized Enfields for sale that with new wood and barrels would make exellent basis for Ranger weapons. The guy at the store was shocked when I asked to look at one
so it is not like they would be expensive. I bet they get hundreds turned in on those awful gun amnesty's and I would love to see them go to the Rangers.
I would like to see a much much bigger Ranger program especially with the US and Denmark making claims in our arctic.
(and I am sure in every canadian town) their are half a dozen sporterized Enfields for sale that with new wood and barrels would make exellent basis for Ranger weapons. The guy at the store was shocked when I asked to look at one
so it is not like they would be expensive. I bet they get hundreds turned in on those awful gun amnesty's and I would love to see them go to the Rangers.
I would like to see a much much bigger Ranger program especially with the US and Denmark making claims in our arctic.
K98ACTION said:Sorry Stevo, You are right, I AM A BIAS MF WHEN IT COMES TO K98's
Don't ask me why, I just love those bastards.
Don't get me wrong, I also think they're fantastic rifles. I just feel the No4 is a better rifle for us.
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but...Silky smooth action, 10 round capacity, a rear aperture sight instead of the crappy open ones, and a battle proven cartridge that can take any game in North America...what's not to love?
How About a Few Scopes or Central Sights For the No.4's?
I have been a No.4 "fan" for 50 years. In the Kenner Collegiate Cadet Corps I shot in the Lord Strathcona shoot at Camp Borden in 1956 then acquired my own 1941 Long Branch for $12.00 the same year.
Yes a 1941 Long Branch! At Sears you could get 32 rounds of WWII ammo in the box. For weeks I would go every Friday and shoot off a box on Saturday. The "good ole days" in Southern Ontario.
Then from 1968 to 1984 or so I had a No. 4 Sniper Rifle with its 32 scope. I put 1000s of rounds through it using 205 grain cast bullets from a Lyman 311299 mould. I lived at the Lakehead and for six years had a 100 metre range in my own backyard.
Remember those little blue tin can that Kleenflo gas antifreeze came it. At that distance it would keep every shot on the bottom of one of those cans.
Got some freshly Yugoslavian manufactured ammo in 1973 that was "exquisitively accurate" as were handloads with CILs 150 grain bullets.
Remember CIL? lol lol..Some of the Best Ammo components ever!
Won a moose sight in bet shooting against a MNR CO who stated that his 300 magnum would outshoot any rifle including mine at an anatomical moose target at 500 yards on a DND Range at the Lakehead.
The MNR sponsored sightin had been conducted for two days at 100 metres. The MNR CO wanted to show what his 300 Mag would do.
My No.4 Put two in the heart of the anatomical moose target at that 500 yard range by simply cranking up the elevation to 5 on the Model 32 scope.
Shot at the side profile anatomical moose target with the No 4 Sniper rifle prone with a sling and with no sighters. The heart and lungs were drawn on the black moose target with white chalk.
No other aiming point just like on a "real moose". Not recommending that such shots at such a distance be attempted on live game but would recommend that a properly sighted in No. 4 with a scope will shot well at longer distances with some good ammunition.
I used my own handloads with the CIL 150 grain bullet.
That drum adjustment on the 32 scope and picket post are a great sighting combo eh.
I have three No.4s at present. They were all "basket cases" until Mr Kevin Keon in Edmonton refurbished them.
One is set up with an easy to attach mount for a Central sight which is a BIG improvement on the issue iron sights without getting in the way. It is instantly detachable and will stow in a jacket pocket. It also makes the No. 4 into an 800 metre propostion eh. Might come in handy sometime for "harassing fire" at ranges beyond 500 metres with iron sights.
Also the No. 4 really comes into its own with the addition of a scope.
Since I sold off my No.4 Sniper Rifle in 1980s Kevin recreated one including a fibreglass cheek piece. They shoot as well or better than my 1968 era original No. 4 which cost $55 total complete with transit chest in 1968; I sold mine for $475 in 1984; now worth is it really $2000? lol lol.
My gunsmith Mr Kevin Keon of Edmonton designed and built a very sturdy mount on which I can mount any number of scopes or an aimpoint type sight or CQB Leopold on the "saved from oblivion" Long Branches.
Would recommend that some Ranger Rifles in a patrol have such a detachable scope.
The No. 4 really is a good long distance rifle with some good ammo.
I have been a No.4 "fan" for 50 years. In the Kenner Collegiate Cadet Corps I shot in the Lord Strathcona shoot at Camp Borden in 1956 then acquired my own 1941 Long Branch for $12.00 the same year.
Yes a 1941 Long Branch! At Sears you could get 32 rounds of WWII ammo in the box. For weeks I would go every Friday and shoot off a box on Saturday. The "good ole days" in Southern Ontario.
Then from 1968 to 1984 or so I had a No. 4 Sniper Rifle with its 32 scope. I put 1000s of rounds through it using 205 grain cast bullets from a Lyman 311299 mould. I lived at the Lakehead and for six years had a 100 metre range in my own backyard.
Remember those little blue tin can that Kleenflo gas antifreeze came it. At that distance it would keep every shot on the bottom of one of those cans.
Got some freshly Yugoslavian manufactured ammo in 1973 that was "exquisitively accurate" as were handloads with CILs 150 grain bullets.
Remember CIL? lol lol..Some of the Best Ammo components ever!
Won a moose sight in bet shooting against a MNR CO who stated that his 300 magnum would outshoot any rifle including mine at an anatomical moose target at 500 yards on a DND Range at the Lakehead.
The MNR sponsored sightin had been conducted for two days at 100 metres. The MNR CO wanted to show what his 300 Mag would do.
My No.4 Put two in the heart of the anatomical moose target at that 500 yard range by simply cranking up the elevation to 5 on the Model 32 scope.
Shot at the side profile anatomical moose target with the No 4 Sniper rifle prone with a sling and with no sighters. The heart and lungs were drawn on the black moose target with white chalk.
No other aiming point just like on a "real moose". Not recommending that such shots at such a distance be attempted on live game but would recommend that a properly sighted in No. 4 with a scope will shot well at longer distances with some good ammunition.
I used my own handloads with the CIL 150 grain bullet.
That drum adjustment on the 32 scope and picket post are a great sighting combo eh.
I have three No.4s at present. They were all "basket cases" until Mr Kevin Keon in Edmonton refurbished them.
One is set up with an easy to attach mount for a Central sight which is a BIG improvement on the issue iron sights without getting in the way. It is instantly detachable and will stow in a jacket pocket. It also makes the No. 4 into an 800 metre propostion eh. Might come in handy sometime for "harassing fire" at ranges beyond 500 metres with iron sights.
Also the No. 4 really comes into its own with the addition of a scope.
Since I sold off my No.4 Sniper Rifle in 1980s Kevin recreated one including a fibreglass cheek piece. They shoot as well or better than my 1968 era original No. 4 which cost $55 total complete with transit chest in 1968; I sold mine for $475 in 1984; now worth is it really $2000? lol lol.
My gunsmith Mr Kevin Keon of Edmonton designed and built a very sturdy mount on which I can mount any number of scopes or an aimpoint type sight or CQB Leopold on the "saved from oblivion" Long Branches.
Would recommend that some Ranger Rifles in a patrol have such a detachable scope.
The No. 4 really is a good long distance rifle with some good ammo.
Last edited:
They don't come in a real cartridge like 30-06.Calum said:I know I'm preaching to the converted, but...Silky smooth action, 10 round capacity, a rear aperture sight instead of the crappy open ones, and a battle proven cartridge that can take any game in North America...what's not to love?
Last edited:
Unsub said:
Honestly fellas, if these other countries start making their collective probing of our northern lands common place, then Canada will have to think alot more about just improving our Ranger program. I think for starters we will have to get naval vessels which will be able to handle pack ice, and maybe build a northern Army base. Iqualuit would be one very good option to build an arctic military base, it has a harbour and big runway. And as the climate begins to get warmer, those waters and the infamous Northwest Passage could very well be open almost year round. If we do not defend it, then the hoards will come and try to stake claim. There is tonnes of oil, gas, and minerals up there still waiting to be found. The rangers alone will not be able to defend it in future. No
Agree 150% With K98Action
As above, Total Agreement with K98Action's Observation Eh!
To paraphrase from Field of Dreams, "We have built it" in Natural Resources; they (meaning anyone of 140 plus Nations that Canada actively gathers foreign intelligence on) are gonna come!"
Complete with underwater drilling rigs for oil,gas, diamond mines, the newly discovered worlds largest deposit of (check one) nickel, gold, iron ore, uranium..take your pick.
Possession is nine tenths of the law..most especially in International Waters...
Frequently "International Waters" become where the Biggest Toughest Navy is sailing eh!
Pax Britannia was not based on PR or diplomats exclusively eh.
What is anything would be the 21st Century equivalent where one or more Navies could combine to take over from a half century of USN supremacy.
Turn on CNN today and watch the USN along with the RN start doing some steaming around the Persian Gulf..
The spectre of "Who will have the NEXT Big Big NAVY" has been as well my continuing observation throughout my previous posts for sure.
For example I can see in my minds eye the soon to be largest Navy and Maritime Force In the World..the Chinese Navy sailing into the Northwest Passage in 2020 or so or perhaps before.
IF that 100 to 1 shot happens well at 80 years of age in 2020 I will be shaking my cane and saying "Hey I told you so!"..
IF the Chinese can fire missiles now to destroy satellites NOW in 2007 in their militarization of space is it fair to say that the Chinese any one or more of 140 other Nations Canada gathers intelligence on MIGHT have in 2017 or 2020 some armaments that could either eliminate or intimidate a RCN to "just stay in port until the diplomats get it straightened out"?
Or do we expect the USN or RN to settle thangs for us while we send a "token fleet" to accompany "The Big Guys"..?
Sounds outlandish right?
Could a billion of Chinese be wrong IF in 2020 they really just "gotta have MORE" resources to keep their ecomomic juggernaut goin? Or have Communism continue on its destimed 100 year long future?
How would you oppose such a HUGE and perhaps technologically superior fleet. OK so we know the Chinese cant do it eh? Or do we?
Or will a simple "No it is just not fair!" from Liberal PM Stephan Dion in his second term in 2020 suffice when whomevers BIG Navy "just shows up and stays and stays in all or part of the Northwest Passage where No. 4 rifles hold our Sovereignity in their ten shot magazines..
Is it fair to say this "we gotta have MORE Resources to survive thang" has happened before and it needed a BIG New Navy to make it happen?
Who would have thought that what the USA considered in its 1930s era of foreign intelligence was "a backward Japan" would have "dreamed up December 7th, 1941 a Day In Infamy -Pearl Harbour"?
Those Japanese Zeros or the Imperial Japanese Battleships and Carrier Fleets were, is it fair to say, "A Complete Tactical Surprise"..
And their Imperial Japan War Cry "Tora Tora Tora" could have been "Oil! Oil! Oil!". I have talked to some of the WWII Veterans and survivors of the Dutch New Guinea campaign..think Shell Oil and all the rest.
Simply put, Imperial Japan decided not to countenance the USA blockade to starve them out "energywise"..so they did a pre-emptive strike.
USAAF General Billy Mitchell saw it coming in 1926 and was courtmartialled for saying so..his 1926 era war game was on a proposed sneak attack on Pearl Harbour..
IMPOSSIBLE the Court Martial said! Cashier Gen Mitchell!
Lindberg and all the rest of the US First Group made sure that the USA was almost 100% isolationist until Dec 7th 1941 although President FDR and his friend and PM Winston Churchill tried to keep things together.
And of course we all know the USA would Never Ever be Isolationist Again..or have you noticed the Democratic Presidental 2008 Campaign recently??
Of course my little fictionalized meanderings of a retiree who has nothing better to do than to hang out on CGN before handgun ammo is banned in Ontario or semi automatic shotguns go the PM Dions crusher..have very little to do such luminaries as Gen Mitchell.
For example no one has named a bomber (ie, the B-25 Mithcell ) after me yet and is VERY unlikely too!
Nevetheless. my perspective on the prospects for Continuing Canadian Sovereignity for 2020 IF we continue just with No.4s on skidoos with the Canadian Rangers SOV PAT activities..
In 2015 or 2020 will the Canadian Armed Forces be asked to fly in 50 year old Hercs (the newer ones still on the Afghanistan Route eh) over the Northwest Passage to survey from above a newly arrived 21st Century fleet of Super Dreadnoughts in whatever form,,battleships carriers? submarines and radio back to PM Stephan Dion,"Prime Minister, as You said at the UN..its just not fair ! Yet they are here! They are signalling they are gonna stay..wait..they are signalling they OWN these waters Prime Minister!"
Will the PMO order to either drop a Canadian flag down towards their decks cut it or will Canadian Rangers be asked to guide some Canadian Armed Forces personnel to intercept a group ashore?
Will the Fleet from whichever one of the 140 Countries in the running simply turn tail and run at the sight of those skidoos and No.4s coming their way?
The Stakes Are Huge!
Imagine what Offshore Wealth is there in the NW Passage..
Meanwhile as to the importance of Offshore Resources be sure to watch Premier Danny Williams launch his tirade about "offshore resources are exclusively Newfoundlands"..with PM Harper
"You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!"
Marco Polo's "Road to Cathay" will take on a new meaning eh.
With a Super Fleet such a Maritime Force will "OWN" the Northwest Passage..as well as the resources beneath...
Might Is Right.
As above, Total Agreement with K98Action's Observation Eh!
To paraphrase from Field of Dreams, "We have built it" in Natural Resources; they (meaning anyone of 140 plus Nations that Canada actively gathers foreign intelligence on) are gonna come!"
Complete with underwater drilling rigs for oil,gas, diamond mines, the newly discovered worlds largest deposit of (check one) nickel, gold, iron ore, uranium..take your pick.
Possession is nine tenths of the law..most especially in International Waters...
Frequently "International Waters" become where the Biggest Toughest Navy is sailing eh!
Pax Britannia was not based on PR or diplomats exclusively eh.
What is anything would be the 21st Century equivalent where one or more Navies could combine to take over from a half century of USN supremacy.
Turn on CNN today and watch the USN along with the RN start doing some steaming around the Persian Gulf..
The spectre of "Who will have the NEXT Big Big NAVY" has been as well my continuing observation throughout my previous posts for sure.
For example I can see in my minds eye the soon to be largest Navy and Maritime Force In the World..the Chinese Navy sailing into the Northwest Passage in 2020 or so or perhaps before.
IF that 100 to 1 shot happens well at 80 years of age in 2020 I will be shaking my cane and saying "Hey I told you so!"..
IF the Chinese can fire missiles now to destroy satellites NOW in 2007 in their militarization of space is it fair to say that the Chinese any one or more of 140 other Nations Canada gathers intelligence on MIGHT have in 2017 or 2020 some armaments that could either eliminate or intimidate a RCN to "just stay in port until the diplomats get it straightened out"?
Or do we expect the USN or RN to settle thangs for us while we send a "token fleet" to accompany "The Big Guys"..?
Sounds outlandish right?
Could a billion of Chinese be wrong IF in 2020 they really just "gotta have MORE" resources to keep their ecomomic juggernaut goin? Or have Communism continue on its destimed 100 year long future?
How would you oppose such a HUGE and perhaps technologically superior fleet. OK so we know the Chinese cant do it eh? Or do we?
Or will a simple "No it is just not fair!" from Liberal PM Stephan Dion in his second term in 2020 suffice when whomevers BIG Navy "just shows up and stays and stays in all or part of the Northwest Passage where No. 4 rifles hold our Sovereignity in their ten shot magazines..
Is it fair to say this "we gotta have MORE Resources to survive thang" has happened before and it needed a BIG New Navy to make it happen?
Who would have thought that what the USA considered in its 1930s era of foreign intelligence was "a backward Japan" would have "dreamed up December 7th, 1941 a Day In Infamy -Pearl Harbour"?
Those Japanese Zeros or the Imperial Japanese Battleships and Carrier Fleets were, is it fair to say, "A Complete Tactical Surprise"..
And their Imperial Japan War Cry "Tora Tora Tora" could have been "Oil! Oil! Oil!". I have talked to some of the WWII Veterans and survivors of the Dutch New Guinea campaign..think Shell Oil and all the rest.
Simply put, Imperial Japan decided not to countenance the USA blockade to starve them out "energywise"..so they did a pre-emptive strike.
USAAF General Billy Mitchell saw it coming in 1926 and was courtmartialled for saying so..his 1926 era war game was on a proposed sneak attack on Pearl Harbour..
IMPOSSIBLE the Court Martial said! Cashier Gen Mitchell!
Lindberg and all the rest of the US First Group made sure that the USA was almost 100% isolationist until Dec 7th 1941 although President FDR and his friend and PM Winston Churchill tried to keep things together.
And of course we all know the USA would Never Ever be Isolationist Again..or have you noticed the Democratic Presidental 2008 Campaign recently??
Of course my little fictionalized meanderings of a retiree who has nothing better to do than to hang out on CGN before handgun ammo is banned in Ontario or semi automatic shotguns go the PM Dions crusher..have very little to do such luminaries as Gen Mitchell.
For example no one has named a bomber (ie, the B-25 Mithcell ) after me yet and is VERY unlikely too!
Nevetheless. my perspective on the prospects for Continuing Canadian Sovereignity for 2020 IF we continue just with No.4s on skidoos with the Canadian Rangers SOV PAT activities..
In 2015 or 2020 will the Canadian Armed Forces be asked to fly in 50 year old Hercs (the newer ones still on the Afghanistan Route eh) over the Northwest Passage to survey from above a newly arrived 21st Century fleet of Super Dreadnoughts in whatever form,,battleships carriers? submarines and radio back to PM Stephan Dion,"Prime Minister, as You said at the UN..its just not fair ! Yet they are here! They are signalling they are gonna stay..wait..they are signalling they OWN these waters Prime Minister!"
Will the PMO order to either drop a Canadian flag down towards their decks cut it or will Canadian Rangers be asked to guide some Canadian Armed Forces personnel to intercept a group ashore?
Will the Fleet from whichever one of the 140 Countries in the running simply turn tail and run at the sight of those skidoos and No.4s coming their way?
The Stakes Are Huge!
Imagine what Offshore Wealth is there in the NW Passage..
Meanwhile as to the importance of Offshore Resources be sure to watch Premier Danny Williams launch his tirade about "offshore resources are exclusively Newfoundlands"..with PM Harper
"You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!"
Marco Polo's "Road to Cathay" will take on a new meaning eh.
With a Super Fleet such a Maritime Force will "OWN" the Northwest Passage..as well as the resources beneath...
Might Is Right.
Last edited:
Not to offend anyone, but as far as an appropriate rifle for Ranger purposes is concerned, there are many different ones that would work just fine. Just about every service rifle adopted by a major nation is rugged, reliable, durable and usefully accurate.
The No. 4 is a fine choice, and as long as supplies can be maintained there is no reason to consider anything else.
The Northwest Passage has been used for commercial purposes for years. It is inevitable that its use will increase.
Iqaluit has a long airstrip, the better part of two miles in length, in need of repaving. Any existing aircraft can land there, the aprons and taxiways can be a bit tight for larger aircraft to manouever.
Iqaluit does not have a harbour worthy of the name. There is a bay, but the tides are extreme. Sealift ships usually anchor outside the bay and barges are used to land freight. Smaller vessels can anchor in the bay, flat bottomed ones can bottom out at low tide, and trucks can drive alongside. Climate change has lengthened the shipping season.
Incidentally, its "Iqaluit", one "u". With 2 "u"s - Iqualuit - it is a different word, and rather offensive, referring to poor personal hygene, rather than a fishing place for char.
The No. 4 is a fine choice, and as long as supplies can be maintained there is no reason to consider anything else.
The Northwest Passage has been used for commercial purposes for years. It is inevitable that its use will increase.
Iqaluit has a long airstrip, the better part of two miles in length, in need of repaving. Any existing aircraft can land there, the aprons and taxiways can be a bit tight for larger aircraft to manouever.
Iqaluit does not have a harbour worthy of the name. There is a bay, but the tides are extreme. Sealift ships usually anchor outside the bay and barges are used to land freight. Smaller vessels can anchor in the bay, flat bottomed ones can bottom out at low tide, and trucks can drive alongside. Climate change has lengthened the shipping season.
Incidentally, its "Iqaluit", one "u". With 2 "u"s - Iqualuit - it is a different word, and rather offensive, referring to poor personal hygene, rather than a fishing place for char.
I think you may have made some very good guesses Son of Pale Face.
I do think a couple CF units with Ranger guides would be much harder to take than you are giving them credit for. A similar situation to Finland in the winter war when an overpowering force of soviets could not beat the finns because of the tactics the Finns used that took advantage of the harsh terrain. It was actually the same tactics the French used against the british during the French Indian war.
The biggest threat to a modern navy is not other ships or even planes any more but Exocet type missles. We could secure the arctic on a budget with some small antiship missles
why use the No 4 and if not what else?
If we planned on using the no 4 for another 50 years I could see them taking the recievers and replacing everything else. My dream project is a Socom 16
based on the Enfield rather than the M14 it would also make sense in .308
If they decide to go with a new rifle the AWP (Arctic Warfare Police) has the perfect name. It is also a quality bolt action in modern calibres like the 338 Lapua.
At the other end of the price scale is the Norinco M305 which would be the perfect semi auto as it is cheap ,robust and most importantly looks nonthreatening with the wood stock. You might even be able to sneak that one past the gun nazis.
Other options are the Valmet, the AK 308 ,a commercial boltgun. The Norinco
SVD clone in 308(I would sign up the next day) or the south afrikan rifle(the Viltor or something) as things designed for severe heat usually work well in severe cold.
I do think a couple CF units with Ranger guides would be much harder to take than you are giving them credit for. A similar situation to Finland in the winter war when an overpowering force of soviets could not beat the finns because of the tactics the Finns used that took advantage of the harsh terrain. It was actually the same tactics the French used against the british during the French Indian war.
The biggest threat to a modern navy is not other ships or even planes any more but Exocet type missles. We could secure the arctic on a budget with some small antiship missles
why use the No 4 and if not what else?
If we planned on using the no 4 for another 50 years I could see them taking the recievers and replacing everything else. My dream project is a Socom 16
based on the Enfield rather than the M14 it would also make sense in .308
If they decide to go with a new rifle the AWP (Arctic Warfare Police) has the perfect name. It is also a quality bolt action in modern calibres like the 338 Lapua.
At the other end of the price scale is the Norinco M305 which would be the perfect semi auto as it is cheap ,robust and most importantly looks nonthreatening with the wood stock. You might even be able to sneak that one past the gun nazis.
Other options are the Valmet, the AK 308 ,a commercial boltgun. The Norinco
SVD clone in 308(I would sign up the next day) or the south afrikan rifle(the Viltor or something) as things designed for severe heat usually work well in severe cold.
tiriaq said:
After reading many posts...there are many issues involved. Getting the rifles very cheaply and barely maintaining them seems to be one, not giving people high firepower weapons and ammunition to keep in their homes seems to be another(the regular army doesn't even get to do that), the No 4 being as good and durable as it is is another...
Everything considered, if I were making the decisions...I'd stick with things as they are except I'd start a refurbishment program where every rifle out there gets rotated and rebuilt. Also, as one of our Rangers pointed out, they don't even issue proper cleaning supplies...just 10W30 oil I think...if nothing else, maybe some CLP with every rifle and a good cleaing rod and a requirement to maintain the rifle to standards so they last. I see no reason to change the rifles to 7.62 either, and I do know that the Enfield actions are not as reliable in that calibre.
If they want 7.62 Enfield type rifles, could I suggest...AIA No 4 Mk 4. Nice rifles and very functional.
There may not be a sufficient supply of spares to conduct a rebuild program. Buying rifles from surplus stocks is likely cheaper than rebuilding existing ones.
Hate to think of No.4s being treated like Rem. 710s, but this may be the least expensive way of maintaining the inventory.
Hate to think of No.4s being treated like Rem. 710s, but this may be the least expensive way of maintaining the inventory.
"Rangers' Military Mission Raises Questions About Canada's Commitment to the North"
The above is the leadin title to the article "On Sovereignity Patrol In the Frozen Arctic" on page A7 of the Monday April 7th, 2007 Globe and Mail. Its leadin title sums up the articles thrust as summarized by Michael Byers, an Arctic expert and international law professor at UBC who points out that PM Stephen Harpers' Federal Government has "made so little progress" on its promised 2006 beefing up of Arctic Sovereignity efforts.
Michael Byers notes that "an increased (Canadian DND) Military and (Federal) Government presence is necessary to enforce sovereignity claims and help enforce domestic laws in the (Arctic) region which is becoming increasingly open to drug and gun smugglers, illegal immigration, and environmental disasters" (Globe and Mail, April 2nd, 2007, pA7).
Thats my "pitch here too" as shown in my previous CGN posts and my own and I am sure making sure "upfront" that the "Good Guys and Gals Have the Training and Equipment to Win" in a SOV PAT confrontation with one or more of the above groups mentioned by Michael Byers.
Thanks Unsub for your encouragement and your very valid point that SOV PAT Military Missions should be equipped with surface to sea or surface to air missiles.
IF one of those foreign intruders shows up what are the SOV PAT Canadian Armed Forces Groups going to use to either "fire a shot across the bows" or "in extremis" take action to terminate the unlawful intrusion at the point of contact?
Better SOV PAT Safe than SOV PAT Sorry Eh looking ahead to 2010 or 2020.
In the Globe and Mail article it is said that (Canadian Ranger) Allen Pogotak is "unfazed avout his latest military mission: scouting a trek
along Canada's last,..unbeaten paths. (Allen Pogotak said) We will make it. We have to have to for Canada".
In this statement of patriotic spirit I see a real NEED to provide the very best of equipment, including the battle rifles carried on SOV PAT Missions for Canada.
Such timely refurbishment is not a big ticket item. It really depends on Political Will to "Make It Happen" and Now!
IF any fellow CGNer knows how to cut and paste the Globe Article into this forum it would assist further discussion.
For example, as of this afternoon Canada's SOV PAT Mission has a Force of 24 Members.
Is it fair to say that for Canada as a Nation State that such an allocation of National Resources to Protect and Defend Our Sovereignity LACKS REAL COMMITTMENT..NOT by the 24 Canadians on SOV PAT But the Nation and its other 33 Million Canadians itself (which includes at least 100,000 or more CGNers EH!)
Our National Budget for SOV PAT IS Our National Priorities In Dollars and SENSE.
That said the Stakes Are Huge For Canada and All Canadians Futures:
In recent years climate change (since 2000) has begun to
transform the North, As ice melts at alarming rates traffic of
all sorts has increased as the area becomes more accessible
and attractive to other countries (pick one of more from 140)
eyeing new and faster shipping routes (see 2010 Chinese Navy)
and massive natural resource deposits such as oil and gas
(Globe and Mail, April 2, 2007,pA7)
National Sovereignity Is a Terrible Thing to Leave Unguarded In the 21st Century.
"Give Us the Tools and We will do the Job!" (PM Winston Churchill, 1941)
Thanks again Unsub for pointing out that the SOV PAT Missions could have a missile component. I also agree 100% that these SOV PAT Mission Force Members would put up a very spirited and heroic resistance if challenged; however I would point out once again as does todays Globe and Maila article that CANADA Needs to Renew Its Committment in any number of ways, including the SOV PAT rifles it issues to Canadian Rangers.
In minimalist terms, that could include is it fair to say a Full Through Refurbishment of ALL Ranger Rifles and/or issuing those No 4 clones in .308 complete with a scope that are on the Wolverine site as Australian International Arms.
For instance the No.4 Mk 4 in .308. Is it fair to say that "some fresh arms" in .308 would help at this point"?
From the posts on CGN it appears to me that some Rangers have already tried out some of these No. 4 Mk 4 rifles on their own.
Sure the Govt of Canada would have to test them out and get a quantity order but if the Australian International Arms No. 4 Mk 4 sellsl retail new now for $900.00 or so do you really not think that 5000 "new ones" could not be acquired for LESS than the 3.8 million dollars they would cost retail?
Probably a wholesale discount of 25 or 40% would bring the costs back to about $2.3 millions to acquire 5000 NEW .308 ten shot magazine rifles No.4 Mk 4.
To put it in current terms, the March-April SOV PAT Mission is costing a Million Dollars.
At the estimates above, that would purchase about 2000 or more new rifles.
And we can only "dare to dream" than any Canadian Arsenal could meet such an order.
Savage made No.4s in WWII; do you really think that Ruger or Remington couldnt crank out a 5000 number order of No.4s in 308?
In the latter instance that would largely eliminate any "steep learning curve" in transferring from No. 4 .303s to the newly acquired IAIs in 308 Nato, easy to acquire ammunition in the DND logistical tail.
CNN April 2nd, 2009: Beijing Report
Today in bilateral talks between China and Canada a number of trade agreements were signed by PM Stephen Harper and the Chinese Premier aboard a new Canadian Icebreaker built by China and named the HMCS Vimy Ridge.
PM Harper also visited the Norinco Armories and there announced an order for 10,000 new rifles for Canada's Rangers. As promised before the Harper Majority Government is reinvigorating the Canadian Rangers and doubling their complement from 4200 t0 10,000 or more.
The rifle chosen by PM Harper himself and test fired with Deputy PM John Baird and Defence Minister Helena Guergis are of two distinct types: A M-14 clone in .308 that will only accept an issue five shot magazine and a No 4 Mk 4 clone in .308.
The ammunition is .308 Nato and is interchangeable between the two types.
As promised, all rifles are capable of an accuracy standard that will keep five shots in the area of a hockey puck at 100 metres.
PM Harper provided the hockey pucks shot at and presented them later to Chinese officials who also placed a large order for Canadian hockey sticks.
Yes it is ALL Fiction!
New .308 bolt action rifles for 10,000 Rangers!
Better yet a Conservative MAJORITY Government! Ohh the Humanity!
Dare to Dream Eh!
The above is the leadin title to the article "On Sovereignity Patrol In the Frozen Arctic" on page A7 of the Monday April 7th, 2007 Globe and Mail. Its leadin title sums up the articles thrust as summarized by Michael Byers, an Arctic expert and international law professor at UBC who points out that PM Stephen Harpers' Federal Government has "made so little progress" on its promised 2006 beefing up of Arctic Sovereignity efforts.
Michael Byers notes that "an increased (Canadian DND) Military and (Federal) Government presence is necessary to enforce sovereignity claims and help enforce domestic laws in the (Arctic) region which is becoming increasingly open to drug and gun smugglers, illegal immigration, and environmental disasters" (Globe and Mail, April 2nd, 2007, pA7).
Thats my "pitch here too" as shown in my previous CGN posts and my own and I am sure making sure "upfront" that the "Good Guys and Gals Have the Training and Equipment to Win" in a SOV PAT confrontation with one or more of the above groups mentioned by Michael Byers.
Thanks Unsub for your encouragement and your very valid point that SOV PAT Military Missions should be equipped with surface to sea or surface to air missiles.
IF one of those foreign intruders shows up what are the SOV PAT Canadian Armed Forces Groups going to use to either "fire a shot across the bows" or "in extremis" take action to terminate the unlawful intrusion at the point of contact?
Better SOV PAT Safe than SOV PAT Sorry Eh looking ahead to 2010 or 2020.
In the Globe and Mail article it is said that (Canadian Ranger) Allen Pogotak is "unfazed avout his latest military mission: scouting a trek
along Canada's last,..unbeaten paths. (Allen Pogotak said) We will make it. We have to have to for Canada".
In this statement of patriotic spirit I see a real NEED to provide the very best of equipment, including the battle rifles carried on SOV PAT Missions for Canada.
Such timely refurbishment is not a big ticket item. It really depends on Political Will to "Make It Happen" and Now!
IF any fellow CGNer knows how to cut and paste the Globe Article into this forum it would assist further discussion.
For example, as of this afternoon Canada's SOV PAT Mission has a Force of 24 Members.
Is it fair to say that for Canada as a Nation State that such an allocation of National Resources to Protect and Defend Our Sovereignity LACKS REAL COMMITTMENT..NOT by the 24 Canadians on SOV PAT But the Nation and its other 33 Million Canadians itself (which includes at least 100,000 or more CGNers EH!)
Our National Budget for SOV PAT IS Our National Priorities In Dollars and SENSE.
That said the Stakes Are Huge For Canada and All Canadians Futures:
In recent years climate change (since 2000) has begun to
transform the North, As ice melts at alarming rates traffic of
all sorts has increased as the area becomes more accessible
and attractive to other countries (pick one of more from 140)
eyeing new and faster shipping routes (see 2010 Chinese Navy)
and massive natural resource deposits such as oil and gas
(Globe and Mail, April 2, 2007,pA7)
National Sovereignity Is a Terrible Thing to Leave Unguarded In the 21st Century.
"Give Us the Tools and We will do the Job!" (PM Winston Churchill, 1941)
Thanks again Unsub for pointing out that the SOV PAT Missions could have a missile component. I also agree 100% that these SOV PAT Mission Force Members would put up a very spirited and heroic resistance if challenged; however I would point out once again as does todays Globe and Maila article that CANADA Needs to Renew Its Committment in any number of ways, including the SOV PAT rifles it issues to Canadian Rangers.
In minimalist terms, that could include is it fair to say a Full Through Refurbishment of ALL Ranger Rifles and/or issuing those No 4 clones in .308 complete with a scope that are on the Wolverine site as Australian International Arms.
For instance the No.4 Mk 4 in .308. Is it fair to say that "some fresh arms" in .308 would help at this point"?
From the posts on CGN it appears to me that some Rangers have already tried out some of these No. 4 Mk 4 rifles on their own.
Sure the Govt of Canada would have to test them out and get a quantity order but if the Australian International Arms No. 4 Mk 4 sellsl retail new now for $900.00 or so do you really not think that 5000 "new ones" could not be acquired for LESS than the 3.8 million dollars they would cost retail?
Probably a wholesale discount of 25 or 40% would bring the costs back to about $2.3 millions to acquire 5000 NEW .308 ten shot magazine rifles No.4 Mk 4.
To put it in current terms, the March-April SOV PAT Mission is costing a Million Dollars.
At the estimates above, that would purchase about 2000 or more new rifles.
And we can only "dare to dream" than any Canadian Arsenal could meet such an order.
Savage made No.4s in WWII; do you really think that Ruger or Remington couldnt crank out a 5000 number order of No.4s in 308?
In the latter instance that would largely eliminate any "steep learning curve" in transferring from No. 4 .303s to the newly acquired IAIs in 308 Nato, easy to acquire ammunition in the DND logistical tail.
CNN April 2nd, 2009: Beijing Report
Today in bilateral talks between China and Canada a number of trade agreements were signed by PM Stephen Harper and the Chinese Premier aboard a new Canadian Icebreaker built by China and named the HMCS Vimy Ridge.
PM Harper also visited the Norinco Armories and there announced an order for 10,000 new rifles for Canada's Rangers. As promised before the Harper Majority Government is reinvigorating the Canadian Rangers and doubling their complement from 4200 t0 10,000 or more.
The rifle chosen by PM Harper himself and test fired with Deputy PM John Baird and Defence Minister Helena Guergis are of two distinct types: A M-14 clone in .308 that will only accept an issue five shot magazine and a No 4 Mk 4 clone in .308.
The ammunition is .308 Nato and is interchangeable between the two types.
As promised, all rifles are capable of an accuracy standard that will keep five shots in the area of a hockey puck at 100 metres.
PM Harper provided the hockey pucks shot at and presented them later to Chinese officials who also placed a large order for Canadian hockey sticks.
Yes it is ALL Fiction!
New .308 bolt action rifles for 10,000 Rangers!
Better yet a Conservative MAJORITY Government! Ohh the Humanity!
Dare to Dream Eh!
Last edited:
Actually I agree that a test batch of the AIA rifles should be bought and trialed in the field. This would only cost about $15,000 for 10 rifles and spare parts, cleaning kits and other stuff. Issue them to a patrol for a year and see what comes out of it.
If I owned the company, I would be pushing sales of the 7.62x39 to the Afghan police.
If I owned the company, I would be pushing sales of the 7.62x39 to the Afghan police.
Unless there were a compelling reason to change to 7.62mm, there is no reason to change rifles.
Is there any reason to believe that AIA/whoever makes the rifles could deliver in quantity?
Why even consider Chinese 305s when the US is holding M-14 rifles in inventory?
Is there any reason to believe that AIA/whoever makes the rifles could deliver in quantity?
Why even consider Chinese 305s when the US is holding M-14 rifles in inventory?
tiriaq said:
You do realize that between the fact Capt. Crunch ruined most of the M14's the US had in inventory and the fact that they are even recalling the M14's they lent to CMP for State shooting competitions they are getting desperate themselves to get their hands on more M14's to issue to the American GI's in Iraq, so I don't think they are going to let go of any to sell to other countries right now.
Dimitri
