Canadian Rangers C19

[flashman2]

Just read the specs, they can’t seriously have bought 10lb .308 carbines for $4000-6000? They needed to test with guides and active rangers, not military.

This has been beaten to death ad nauseam on here, but the rifle WAS developed from the EXACT list of requirements the rangers themselves developed over years working with DRDC. They asked for exactly this, and got it. It was trialled for YEARS before being finally adopted.

http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/BASIS/pcandid/www/engpub/DDW?W=SYSNUM=535161&M=1&R=Y&U=1

The Cdn Rangers ARE military. The rifle isn't intended for use by guides, nor would guides have a clue about the requirements for a Ranger rifle, so their input would be irrelevant. Who needs to be consulted is the end user, and they were. Extensively. For nearly a decade.

The 10 lbs includes the rifle, optics, sights, ammo, cleaning kit, accessories, etc. The rifle alone is just over 8lbs. C19 with optic and loaded is lighter than a loaded C7A1, which doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. The Rangers wanted a rifle lighter than the No 4, and that's exactly what they got.

The cost isn't merely the individual rifle cost, it includes all the ancillary items, spares, and associated life cycle costs with maintaining it in military service. For example the simple per unit cost of a C7A1 on the CF Supply System database is about HALF of what they sell for retail. Add in all the other junk and associated life cycle costs and the price skyrockets.

Lot of assumption without understanding the facts. Gotta love how everyone here is an expert and knows exactly why it sucks, meanwhile the Rangers love it.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

I still can't believe the Rangers went with a Tikka. And the cost factor is crazy, and yes, I understand how service contracts work, but this was a huge waste of money.

I was expecting something more along the lines of the Ruger 77s and Remington 700s, both with orange stocks, that were in the system and carried by SarTechs back in the late 80s and early 90s. Just simple sporting rifles with painted stocks.

I only know of two guys that lost rifles during military service. The first I was actually present for, that being a C7 falling out of a Huey (and yes, a Huey, not a Griffin) somewhere over Gagetown. I was laughing my ass off. No charges as it was considered an accident. As far as I know, that rifle was never recovered. The second was a guy that got drunk in Bosnia and left his C7 in an Iltis while he went into a local Serb bar and had a few more drinks. Rifle was taken by a local. The local Serb commander intercepted the rifle and returned it to the CF camp a few days later. Surprisingly there was only a 129 charge.

 

[mildot]

Lot of assumption without understanding the facts. Gotta love how everyone here is an expert and knows exactly why it sucks, meanwhile the Rangers love it.

Well thanks for the "heads up" and as long as they are happy, that's the most important thing today, after all, they are the first line of defense.

 

[Ardent]

Trialed for years, and yet it has feed issues with the issued magazines. Good info on the weight, the commercial variant also show’s a 10lb spec, suppose that too includes accessories, scope, ammo which isn’t a conventional way to spec a weight.

It somehow all seems very appropriate for a government tender. Again I’m happy the rangers received new equipment and it’s great to see them supported.

 

[jparent]

I love the practicality of this design, and if it wasn't $2500, I'd be saving up for one.

No idea why more rifles are not set up this way. The Ruger Guide has forward-mounted irons, the Ruger Scout has a receiver sight but the silly scout mount. The CZ557 Range has forward irons. Nice guns, but none of them are set up to have good optics and good peep.

If someone made a rifle like this with fold-down peep sight and quick-detach scope mounts, I think it would be the ultimate setup for all-round Canadian hunting. Just my opinion of course. If my CIL 830 was drilled for the peep sight, I'd be able to get it close to this setup, as the sidemount scope allows for use of both irons and scope. But mine isn't drilled for the peep, although most Savage 340-based rifles are. And of course, it's in .30-30, which most people crap on.

So... you mean the Steyr?

 

[medvedqc]

This has been beaten to death ad nauseam on here, but the rifle WAS developed from the EXACT list of requirements the rangers themselves developed over years working with DRDC. They asked for exactly this, and got it. It was trialled for YEARS before being finally adopted.

http://pubs.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/BASIS/pcandid/www/engpub/DDW?W=SYSNUM=535161&M=1&R=Y&U=1

The Cdn Rangers ARE military. The rifle isn't intended for use by guides, nor would guides have a clue about the requirements for a Ranger rifle, so their input would be irrelevant. Who needs to be consulted is the end user, and they were. Extensively. For nearly a decade.

The 10 lbs includes the rifle, optics, sights, ammo, cleaning kit, accessories, etc. The rifle alone is just over 8lbs. C19 with optic and loaded is lighter than a loaded C7A1, which doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. The Rangers wanted a rifle lighter than the No 4, and that's exactly what they got.

The cost isn't merely the individual rifle cost, it includes all the ancillary items, spares, and associated life cycle costs with maintaining it in military service. For example the simple per unit cost of a C7A1 on the CF Supply System database is about HALF of what they sell for retail. Add in all the other junk and associated life cycle costs and the price skyrockets.

Lot of assumption without understanding the facts. Gotta love how everyone here is an expert and knows exactly why it sucks, meanwhile the Rangers love it.

you are certainly smoking a good one when you said tried for years. i do not think a whole unit of rangers had the rifle for even months for trial purpose let alone years ...

you may surprise but some rangers are guides or even outfitters ...

so far how many units has received it and in how many samples all together?

the Rangers are army for sure but a specific unit and on the top of that reserve unit.

 

[flashman2]

To be precise, the Rangers didn't go with the Tikka, PWGSC did. The Rangers gave the specs, PWGCS picked the rifle that met those specs and was compliant with the terms of the offer.

A 129 is hardly an "only" charge - it carries a maximum punishment only two levels down from the maximum punishment... you can still get dismissal with disgrace or two years less a day with a 129. The only other potential charger would be under 116, and the only difference there is you could get over two years but less than life. 129 has huge potential punishment attached to it; it's the power of punishment of the officer hearing the charge that usually limits it.

 

[flashman2]

you are certainly smoking a good one when you said tried for years. i do not think a whole unit of rangers had the rifle for even months for trial purpose let alone years ...

you may surprise but some rangers are guides or even outfitters ...

so far how many units has received it and in how many samples all together?

the Rangers are army for sure but a specific unit and on the top of that reserve unit.

Sigh.

Why is there so much wilfull stupid on here?

I didn't say Rangers had the rifles for years. I didn't say whole units of the Rangers had the rifles for years. What I did say was that they were trialled for years. PART of that is end user trials which took place in 2015. I'll repeat.. PART of the trial process is end user trials. That's why it's called end user trials and not just... trials. You don't send prototypes out to end users for trial without first trialing them to make sure they meet the technical requirements.

What Rangers do outside Rangering wouldn't surprise me, mainly because I've worked with them a bunch and know more than a few of them professionally. But in any case your point is wholly irrelevant. It isn't their guide or outfitter experience that's relevant, it's their Ranger experience that is. Your point would make sense if I said "no Ranger with guide experience can provide useful input," but I didn't. It's like asking a 3 gun shooter what he wants out of an assault rifle... not very relevant to a soldier. If he's a soldier AND a 3 gun shooter, then it is.

How the rollout is going? I have no idea. I haven't been folowing it because it's not of any particular interest to me. I can ask the project manager if you like and get back?

I'm presuming you're a Ranger... do you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or just sniping?

 

[Ardent]

To be precise, the Rangers didn't go with the Tikka, PWGSC did. The Rangers gave the specs, PWGCS picked the rifle that met those specs and was compliant with the terms of the offer.

Your posts keep getting edited I have to go back and refresh on where we’re at in our debate. Tell me flashman what the purpose of the rifle is again as I wonder if you know what guides do and where they work.

The citation makes the purpose pretty clear to me... Seems the only part guides would clearly be ignorant of is the symbol of Canadian sovereignty part. They’re pretty darn familiar with bears and extreme environments. This isn’t rocket science, it’s a .308 all weather carbine for hunting and bears.

Better yet, just tell me what aspects of a .308 hunting / bear carbine guides are going to be clueless on.

Protection from predators, hunting/survival tool, and a symbol of Canadian sovereignty

 

[flashman2]

Well thanks for the "heads up" and as long as they are happy, that's the most important thing today, after all, they are the first line of defense.

I'm not sure what level of sarcasm that is, but yeah... they are, actually. They are the only reserve unit that has a permanent operational task. Other than JTF2, CJIRU etc they're one of the very very few Army units with a permanent operational task. They provide presence and by extension exercise sovereignty over some fairly important areas. Heard of the Northwest Passage? And how it'll shortly become passable for freight and passengers? Rangers are the only Canadian presence up there and just by being there they execute a critical national defence function. They contribute more concretely to national sovereignty and defence than your average soldier does, and I say that as an ex soldier. In terms of neglect in resources and bang for the buck, they are unparalleled anywhere else in the CF.

 

[flashman2]

Your posts keep getting edited I have to go back and refresh on where we’re at in our debate. Tell me flashman what the purpose of the rifle is again as I wonder if you know what guides do and where they work.

The citation makes the purpose pretty clear to me... Seems the only part guides would clearly be ignorant of is the symbol of Canadian sovereignty part. They’re pretty darn familiar with bears and extreme environments. This isn’t rocket science, it’s a .308 all weather carbine for hunting and bears.

Better yet, just tell me what aspects of a .308 hunting / bear carbine guides are going to be clueless on.

Ok. So why should they have consulted guides?

NM... I'll answer my own question. If you read the whole paper, down in the Annexes there's the statement of requirements.

No guide has to have a weapon capable of shooting people or engaging in close combat in an emergency.

No guide takes their rifle out for weeks at a time at -30 on a skidoo or dog sled.

No guide rifle sees as much use over a service life as a Ranger rifle will. Not even close.

Guides can order their own spare parts and their own replacement rifles if the need arises.

95% of the requirements will be the same. It's the last 5% that are the make or break life and death difference. Guiding clients for profit isn't the same job as being a Ranger. You may know most of it, but you wont know all of it, and that's the point. The only person to determine the SOR - ever - is the end user.

 

[flashman2]

Trialed for years, and yet it has feed issues with the issued magazines. Good info on the weight, the commercial variant also show’s a 10lb spec, suppose that too includes accessories, scope, ammo which isn’t a conventional way to spec a weight.

It somehow all seems very appropriate for a government tender. Again I’m happy the rangers received new equipment and it’s great to see them supported.

Yeah, I dunno why the tikka page shows it as 10lbs in one place, the rest of their specs are the correct 4kg or 8lbs and a bit. Typo? Mistake? Beats me. Loaded with 10 rds, sling and optic I can see 10 lbs for sure. Perhaps that's it.

NO argument on how big a cluster F the tender and contracting process is. It's mental. But that's different than a lot of the objections people raise about the rifle without understanding the story.

 

[flashman2]

Personally, I'd submit that just giving each ranger an allowance and allowing them to select from one of an approved list of .308 rifles would be a far more practical solution, but... reasons.

 

[medvedqc]

Sigh.

Why is there so much wilfull stupid on here?

I didn't say Rangers had the rifles for years. I didn't say whole units of the Rangers had the rifles for years. What I did say was that they were trialled for years. PART of that is end user trials which took place in 2015. I'll repeat.. PART of the trial process is end user trials. That's why it's called end user trials and not just... trials. You don't send prototypes out to end users for trial without first trialing them to make sure they meet the technical requirements.

What Rangers do outside Rangering wouldn't surprise me, mainly because I've worked with them a bunch and know more than a few of them professionally. But in any case your point is wholly irrelevant. It isn't their guide or outfitter experience that's relevant, it's their Ranger experience that is. Your point would make sense if I said "no Ranger with guide experience can provide useful input," but I didn't. It's like asking a 3 gun shooter what he wants out of an assault rifle... not very relevant to a soldier. If he's a soldier AND a 3 gun shooter, then it is.

How the rollout is going? I have no idea. I haven't been folowing it because it's not of any particular interest to me. I can ask the project manager if you like and get back?

I'm presuming you're a Ranger... do you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or just sniping?

not a ranger cant be one because of my job but the point is i know more rangers than you do ... they are to observe and report not to engage .... but living in the north is interesting to see how some in the south are explaining what we need here ....

 

[flashman2]

not a ranger cant be one because of my job but the point is i know more rangers than you do ... they are to observe and report not to engage .... but living in the north is interesting to see how some in the south are explaining what we need here ....

Is it? Is that the point? Cool. Which CRPG did you work with?

Interesting how some not in the military are explaining how trials and procurement work, or what the role of the Rangers is.

Again though, do you have anything constructive to add, or just more sniping? I've clarified the development and procurement process, you've incorrectly called me out and added nothing of value. I'm not generating any new ideas here, I'm simply educating on the selection process for the C19. The Rangers themselves did a fine job of determining what they need.

 

[Ardent]

Ok. So why should they have consulted guides?

NM... I'll answer my own question. If you read the whole paper, down in the Annexes there's the statement of requirements.

No guide has to have a weapon capable of shooting people or engaging in close combat in an emergency.

No guide takes their rifle out for weeks at a time at -30 on a skidoo or dog sled.

No guide rifle sees as much use over a service life as a Ranger rifle will. Not even close.

Guides can order their own spare parts and their own replacement rifles if the need arises.

95% of the requirements will be the same. It's the last 5% that are the make or break life and death difference. Guiding clients for profit isn't the same job as being a Ranger. You may know most of it, but you wont know all of it, and that's the point. The only person to determine the SOR - ever - is the end user.

Everything but shooting people and far more expensive ways of fixing the rifles, actually yes, same applications, make that identical applications. Your thought process on rifle suitability and user reqs is colouring in my understanding of the military’s thinking and why we ended up with a $6000 T3, admittedly paid up front though essentially amortized over a service life. You’ve brought up many good points but overall I can tell we’re so far apart on our understandings of wilderness hard service bear and utility rifles we’re not likely to agree inside three fingers of scotch.

The CRs act as a community liaison and provide environmental expertise, wilderness education, guide services, and predator overwatch for the units during exercises.

The CRs are a mobile force, moving about the northern expanse on all manner of locomotion. Rifles are strapped to dogsleds, lashed to snowmobiles, shoved into a small aircraft, stowed in boats, and, of course, slung over the shoulder. Smaller and lighter is easier and faster to stow and deploy.

That... nevermind.

 

[flashman2]

Everything but shooting people and far more expensive ways of fixing the rifles, actually yes, same applications, make that identical applications. Your thought process on rifle suitability and user reqs is colouring in my understanding of the military’s thinking and why we ended up with a $6000 T3, admittedly paid up front though essentially amortized over a service life. You’ve brought up many good points but overall I can tell we’re so far apart on our understandings of wilderness hard service bear and utility rifles we’re not likely to agree inside three fingers of scotch.



That... nevermind.

I suspect we're not. I sure wouldn't pick the T3x as my first or fifth choice. If we were, I'm SURE three fingers of scotch would be a great start to ironing it out.

No offence intended. I'm not saying the outcome is optimal for everyone, but rather that it's a product of the best process there is to put a rifle into military service. There's a million considerations beyond just what a shooter or guide would be able to pick for themselves.

Don't forget, this is just the issued rifle. Rangers can and will have their own rifles too. This is just the one they get for free.

My personal answer would be the old Ruger 77 .416 Rigby, that I sold long ago, if i was a Ranger in the far north. Naked, no optics. Carried much, shot little, and the 99% problem is the largest land predator on the planet. Simple enough problem to solve. If I was a Ranger in one of the southern CRPGs, a Rem Seven in 7mm08 with a 1-4 leupold. Under 7 pounds and suitable for anything short of polar bear. Not that that's my favourite bush rifle or anything.

Frankly I'd rather have a Ruger 77/44 loaded with hard cast for most situations than a much heavier .308 if the problem is simply predator defence. The penetration from a 270 grain hard cast is astounding compared to an expanding. 308. There's no comparison, and it's a sub six pound rifle the length of a C8 carbine.

I hesitate to bring it up because... you know, this is not the place to have an informed conversation about such things... but I'm taking my boat up the Labrador coast to the Torngats next year and a small part of that is pondering the correct tool to take. There's the best rifle to stop a bear. Then there's the best rifle to stop a bear that you're going to carry up a mountain with no intention of hunting bears. Then there's the best rifle to stop a bear, carry up a mountain and sit in a locker on a boat 99.5% of the time. All of those impact the choice in a way they wouldn't if it wasn't that exact circumstance, like the specific choices of the Rangers are influenced by their circumstances.

I'll ask around tomorrow and see if I can find the unit cost for the rifle alone... not the overall cost because there'll be the tooling and development costs for colt Canada to make it, but the actual per unit replacement cost. The fact that it has to be made and supported in canada is an inescapable fact of national policy. I'm not convinced it's critical in this case, but the policy is to have it totally domestic so worst case we can support it ourselves forever.

 

[Gatehouse]

I personally think my Ruger scout rifle would be better, but Ive shot one of the commercial versions of the Tikka and it was a good rifle. Particularly liked the rotating rear sight, I thought it was pretty good system.

Consulting guides would be a waste of time. I’ve known many guides and their views on firearms are incredibly varied. Perhaps most importantly, many are not really gun enthusiasts.

 

[gallen270]

Beautiful Rifle! Looks like the rangers got a real nice piece of kit finally!

 

[Ardent]

I suspect we're not. I sure wouldn't pick the T3x as my first or fifth choice. If we were, I'm SURE three fingers of scotch would be a great start to ironing it out.

No offence intended. I'm not saying the outcome is optimal for everyone, but rather that it's a product of the best process there is to put a rifle into military service. There's a million considerations beyond just what a shooter or guide would be able to pick for themselves.

Don't forget, this is just the issued rifle. Rangers can and will have their own rifles too. This is just the one they get for free.

My personal answer would be the old Ruger 77 .416 Rigby, that I sold long ago, if i was a Ranger in the far north. Naked, no optics. Carried much, shot little, and the 99% problem is the largest land predator on the planet. Simple enough problem to solve. If I was a Ranger in one of the southern CRPGs, a Rem Seven in 7mm08 with a 1-4 leupold. Under 7 pounds and suitable for anything short of polar bear. Not that that's my favourite bush rifle or anything.

Frankly I'd rather have a Ruger 77/44 loaded with hard cast for most situations than a much heavier .308 if the problem is simply predator defence. The penetration from a 270 grain hard cast is astounding compared to an expanding. 308. There's no comparison, and it's a sub six pound rifle the length of a C8 carbine.

Now we’re in my wheelhouse, and we can pour more scotch. The .308 will do much better on stopping big bears than the best .44 mag hardcast rifle only load. Plenty of solid .308 rifle options that could have been modified to fit the program requirements live in the 6lb range. My experience is all guiding Grizzlies and blacks, not Polars, but hardcast has been the worst stopper I’ve witnessed. Reliable killer, but unreliable stopper compared to something faster- even just a .308. A pour from the outfitter side of our table here. Neither of our first choices had a hope in heck of being selected, I like your .416, I carry a stainless .375 H&H Model 70, iron sighted as well naturally, and Glock 10mm for the Grizzly work. Fly helis, bushplanes, run boats, sleds. All I’d argue is lighter, more cost effective.

We both agree this isn’t where we’d take the selection process if we had sole control of it, and you’ve helped me see the constraints the process by nature puts on the whole thing. I’d love to see a stainless, detachable mag 6.5lb .308 with the same style sights and rail, at $1000-1500 a unit before accessories and lifetime service costs. Laminate was a good choice of stock material for decades of service in arctic temps, and a good chunk of the weight.