No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade 334
ControlsGeek writes The Lee-Enfield .303 rifle is being phased out for use by the Canadian Rangers, a Northern aboriginal branch of the Armed Forces. The rifle has been in service with the Canadian military for 100 years and is still being used by the Rangers for its unfailing reliability in Arctic conditions. If only the hardware that we use in computers could have such a track record. The wheels turn slowly, though, and it's not clear what kind of gun will replace the Enfields.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:May I suggest (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, stock will melt if left under vehicle curved window in summer. I speak from experience.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, I don't think that is a concern in the canadian north.
However I would be concerned about the opposite. synthetics don't do well in extreme cold either.
Re:May I suggest (Score:5, Informative)
I've owned quite a few Rifles in my time. Wood stocks are superior to composite in every category but 1. Composite is lighter.
Re: (Score:3)
Seasoned hardwood doesn't warp. I've owned an enfield .303 and it's only drawback is that it's heavy. It's super accurate and unfailingly reliable with plenty of knockdown power. I don't like it for deer hunting because it's really a little too much rifle for deer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but the AWP can kill someone if you shoot their toe or finger. the best strategy is to bunny hop around the battlefield to avoid being shot.
you should also spin around so you can shout "LOL 360 kill"
Re: (Score:3)
And everyone who has played Counter-Strike knows that the AWP (http://counterstrike.wikia.com/wiki/AWP) is a great Arctic weapon.
No, they know that the game designers thought it was a great Arctic weapon.
Any relationship between what game designers think (or at least, put in their games -- ditto for authors) and the real world is entirely coincidental.
Not all plastics are the same (Score:2)
However I would be concerned about the opposite. synthetics don't do well in extreme cold either.
That depends very much on exactly which synthetic material(s) you are talking about. Some have chemistry that works great in cold. Others not so much. There is more than a bit of "you get what you pay for" here.
Re: (Score:2)
You understand: summer?
You understand: glass window? Probably black console, or luggage are?
You understand: closed vehicle aka green house?
What has the latitude to do with that? Even at the north pole during 'polar day' it easy gets over 100 degrees C inside of a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: May I suggest (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many bolt guns with similar functionality and better performance than the Lee-Enfield.
For example, the Remington 700P weighs the same as an Enfield, but has modern accuracy (0.5 MOA out of the box isn't uncommon), durability (not as effected by temperature swings), and is available with modern cartridges like 308 Win and 300 Win Mag.
Or there are rifles like the Ruger Gunsite Scout, while not combat proven, is cold weather hunting proven, offering a very lightweight package at aroun 7 lbs, 308 Win, better accuracy than the Enfield, a temperature resistant laminate stock, and back up irons.
Re: (Score:2)
That is because you were using a cheap-ass thermoplastic/synthetic stock instead of a quality fiberglass/synthetic stock.
There are many bolt guns with similar functionality and better performance than the Lee-Enfield.
For example, the Remington 700P weighs the same as an Enfield, but has modern accuracy (0.5 MOA out of the box isn't uncommon), durability (not as effected by temperature swings), and is available with modern cartridges like 308 Win and 300 Win Mag.
Or there are rifles like the Ruger Gunsite Scout, while not combat proven, is cold weather hunting proven, offering a very lightweight package at aroun 7 lbs, 308 Win, better accuracy than the Enfield, a temperature resistant laminate stock, and back up irons.
Not trying to be condascending here, I'm just curious. How well do fiber glass stocks do at -40 C? I notice the only rifle you listed as cold weather proven still has a wood laminate stock. Personally I'm generally pretty liberal and open to new ideas but when it comes to guns I pretty much won't touch anything that doesn't have a wooden stock. It's partly because I detest plastic and partly because experience has taught me that plastics tend to get brittle at extremely low temperatures but I've never reall
Re: May I suggest (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: May I suggest (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Remember, the old Lee Enfield rifles were never designed as sniper weapons. They were battle rifles first and foremost, which just happened to be pretty serviceable as sniper weapons. Additionally, I don't think the rifles to be replaced are scoped rifles. As far as I know they are simply standard Lee Enfield No.4's.
Years ago, I was working in a research camp in the high arctic, and the Arctic Ranger in our camp let me shoot his Lee Enfield. Amazing weapon, and the perfect thing for knocking down a polar bear. The amazing thing with the weapon I used, is that it had graphiti on the stock... Scratched into it, and nearly worn away was written "June 6, 1944." which to me indicates that the weapon had been used at Normandy. The serial number on the barrel also indicated that the weapon pre-dated the Normandy landings a
Re: (Score:3)
Parts of it are. Considering the very wide range of temperatures across Canada, if the government is looking for one rifle to handle any conditions, and cost is a factor, they're better off with wood laminate stocks.
If they've stuck this long with the Lee-Enfield, it's a pretty good indication that they're more concerned with reliability over many decades and standardization than they are with the latest tech.
Re: May I suggest (Score:5, Interesting)
Full disclosure: I'm 56 years old, and still own a Lee-Enfield that was given to me by my father when I was 13, which originally belonged to HIS father. It still works as well as it did the day I got it.
I grew up in Labrador, hunting fishing and camping. I had two tours of CFS Alert [wikipedia.org], at 82 deg 30 min North. I've been to Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Churchill, Tuktoyuktuk, Iqualiuit, and very many places in between. Believe me, I've seen cold - but cold isn't even the biggest problem.
The Rangers are generally either Innu or Amerind. Technically, they are on duty or on call 24/7. Most of those involved in the Rangers still follow their traditional lifestyles - they hunt, fish, and trap for a living, and spend their time outdoors.
They don''t carry multiple weapons - they don't have the space or weight to spare, given the rest of their kit. That's why the Lee-Enfield has lasted as long as it has - it can be used to hunt for seal, moose or caribou, or defence against moose (ugly, nasty brutes - very evil tempered), wolves, or polar bears. You can hit a target out to about 350 yards or so - more than sufficient for any practical use, and long enough that you don't have to do extra laundry because a polar bear decided that you looked like a snack.
In the meantime - the rifle is carried around on your back while you're going through thick brush, getting banged and nicked as you go. It's sitting in the bottom of a canoe, or a kayak. it's getting banged around while sitting on the running boards of the snowmobile. It's in the bottom of a 12 foot motor boat while you go from island to island in the Arctic Ocean, getting banged around and covered with salt spray. It's stuffed where ever it can fit on the dogsled (yes, they are still used in some places). And after all that crap and abuse, you just have to pick the thing up, and it will hit what you aim at. No fuss, no muss.
Bottom line: Stand me in the world's best gun shop, give me unlimited credit, and tell me I can take one - and ONLY one weapon. I'll take the Lee-Enfield, every time. And I'll still be using it when every other weapon there has died of old age or just disintegrated because of the environment.
I pity the poor bastard that has to make the decision on the replacement. I'm just glad it's not me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I met that poor bastard who is helping make the decision last week - and everything you said is correct.
I had one for a while. (Score:3)
It was a military surplus rifle that had been "sporterized" (mainly by cutting the stock down to a more civilian profile).
The Enfield has an interesting history: Back in the period leading up to WWII the British mmilitary had a good idea the war was coming. The army was armed mainly wiith the Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles and they knew they needed a good slect fire automatic/semiautomatic rifle to replace them, least they be outgunned. But they debated over WHICH design to pick for so long that, when th
Re:I had one for a while. (Score:5, Informative)
No, that's wrong on many accounts. The german reports of withering Lee-Enfield fire are from the first world war. And since the German army had extensive experience from the Lee-Enfield from the first world war, its capabilities weren't a surprise the second time around. Not by a long shot.
But that didn't matter since rifles were passe. The German infantry squad was armed with the Mauser (shortened version of the full length rifle of WWI) throughout WWII. But that didn't matter as the rifle squad had the newly invented general purpose machine gun to form around. It was even considered the sole reason for the squad's existence. (See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]). Note that only NCOs etc. were supplied with any kind of automatic weapons, in most cases the "Schmeisser" submachine gun. The rest of the squad was basically there to carry ammunition for the machine gun and to provide flank cover for the crew. And the German rifle squad could definately put more rounds on target than a British rifle squad of the time, the "mad minute" not withstanding.
The sturmgewehr 44 didn't come out until (you guessed it), 1944, and was never a standard rifle squad rifle. It's cartridge was emphatically not developed with any "only need to wound" factor taken into account. Instead it was recognised that most targets were human, and only 150m away or so (max 300). So much could be saved by developing a cartridge for that situation instead of a cartridge that could topple a horse at shorter ranges and a man at 1000m (the original design specifications actually hinged on the effectiveness against horses, as stopping a cavalry charge was still very much the order of the day). So instead the "kurz" round was developed to give rifle like performance out to a couple of hundred meters, but allowing the carrying of more ammunition both on the person and in the gun, and much lower recoil, which becomes important in a fully automatic weapon.
The "wound not kill" design parameters don't come into effect until 5.56mm NATO and the corresponding USSR rounds were introduced in the late sixties/seventies. (As can be observed by their abysmal performance in a full metal jacket to actually stop a man. They still kill without much problem.) Horses were out of the picture when 5.56mm NATO was developed, so that together with "wounding factor" (wound not kill wasn't really a factor when designing rifle ammunitio) is why they got away with such a weak cartridge. Which was actually weaker from the beginning but the Army kept insisting on being able to penetrate a steel helmet at 300m, so the case had to be lengthened and lengthened to fit enough propellant. That gave the unfortunate case dimensions that are with us still to this day.
Re: (Score:3)
Cheap choice of plastic (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, stock will melt if left under vehicle curved window in summer. I speak from experience.
Then it was an inappropriate choice of material but that is not sufficient evidence to condemn (or recommend) synthetics in general. Most cars are loaded with plastics and they don't melt. If the stock you had melted from the fairly modest heat in a car, then it was a piece of junk to begin with. No plastic on a working tool should melt that easily unless that was the specific intent.
There are plenty of non-exotic plastics with melting points well in excess of 130C (266F), and some considerably higher. Nylon's melting point is 190C for example. I work with many of them routinely. If your car is getting that hot I think some plastic melting will be the least of your concern.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Providing the proper "re$pect" is donated to the proper palms.
Re:May I suggest (Score:5, Insightful)
composite (plastic) stocks do become very brittle in freezing weather (I know having had a Crosman Nightstalker disintegrate in my hands while out ratting just last February), this is why the CS proposals were rejected. There is an Enfield analogue already (what you might call a civilian version), but you won't find any Canadian hunters using it simply because it has a composite stock - the M10. Hardwoods are more stable in pretty much any environment as long as the grain is sealed, than any other material save titanium alloy, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to know what that'd cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:May I suggest (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. That may apply to your military with its huge budgets and tiny political oversight.
In the developed world, we do not feel obliged to be the worlds policeman and do not fund our services according to that idea.
Yes, they do tend to get a lot of money but it's not limitless.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we have to blow our budget on those fancy F35's...
Re: (Score:2)
ok, here it is: a beech stock costs about $5. That's trimmed for the action as well.
A custom milled titanium alloy stock costs $850 *minimum* (knowing since I had a TA bullpup conversion made for a Benjamin Sheridan EB22 in '07).
If you're RFPing for ten thousand of these things, and you're on a Government budget, do the math and weigh that against the backlash when you turn a 50k expense into a million Dollars you could have spent elsewhere, like say on essential other survival gear such as water purificati
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case, their not military. Police have different requirements than the military, not the least of which is sticking to a budget.
Despite what you see with US police departments, police forces don't need the latest military hardware.
Re: (Score:3)
Except in this case, their not military. Police have different requirements than the military, not the least of which is sticking to a budget.
Except the Rangers *are* military. Their officers are Army, they are trained by the Army, supplied by the Army, and paid by the Army.
Anecdotal evidence from cheap guns (Score:2)
composite (plastic) stocks do become very brittle in freezing weather (I know having had a Crosman Nightstalker disintegrate in my hands while out ratting just last February) Hardwoods are more stable in pretty much any environment as long as the grain is sealed, than any other material save titanium alloy, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to know what thatd cost.
You're using a very cheap ($100) air rifle as evidence that plastics break in cold weather? Do you seriously think the plastics in that were engineered with any sort of temperature extremes in mind? That thing was produced to be as cheap as possible and you can be sure that they didn't get carried away picking a plastic that can handle temperature extremes. There are plenty of synthetic materials that can handle cold just fine.
Not saying you are necessarily wrong but can you cite any evidence for this st
Re: (Score:2)
well, we could always ask someone who knows. How about the patent holders for Nylon?
According to DuPont, the glass point of raw nylon 6 (the point at which it loses flexibility and takes on physical characteristics of plate glass) is around -40F. Doping can alleviate this in terms of overall structural integrity, but that becomes moot when water gets in and forces fissures apart. Also, ask ANYONE who a: lives in a cold climate and b: wears Goretex, just how their coats behave in extreme cold conditions.
That is a very different material (Score:4, Interesting)
Look up "thermosetting vs thermoplastic" for some ideas. What the holders of the nylon patent know is not relevant for something made of glass reinforced epoxy resin.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that the Royal Canadian Mounted Geese aren't using these critters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Rather than a traditional wooden or polymer rifle stock, the AW is based on an aluminium chassis which extends the entire length of the stock. This chassis system is marketed as the Accuracy International Chassis System (AICS) and can be used for all Accuracy International rifles. All other components, including the receiver, are bolted directly to this chassis. Two hollow polymer "half thumb-hole stock panels", usually coloured green, dark earth or black, are in turn bolted to the chassis, creating a rugged, yet for its sturdiness comparatively light, weapon. The Accuracy International receiver is bolted with 4 screws and permanently bonded with epoxy material to the aluminium chassis, and was designed for ruggedness, simplicity and ease of operation. To this end the heavy-walled, flat-bottomed, flat-sided receiver is a stressed part, machined in-house by AI from a solid piece of forged carbon steel. AW rifles are supplied in two action lengths—standard AW (short) and long SM (magnum). The six bolt lugs, arranged in two rows of three, engage a heat-treated steel locking ring insert pinned inside the front bridge of the action. The ring can be removed and replaced to refresh headspace control on older actions. The AW system cast steel bolt has a 0.75-inch (19 mm) diameter combined with gas relief holes in a 0.785 in (19.9 mm) diameter bolt body and front action bridge allowing high-pressure gases a channel of escape in the event of a cartridge-case head failure. Against penetrating water or dirt the bolt has milled slots, which also prevent freezing or similar disturbances. Unlike conventional bolt-action rifles, the bolt handle is bent to the rear, which eases the repeating procedure for the operator and reduces the contour of the weapon. The action cocks on opening with a short, 60 degree bolt throw and has a non-rotating (fixed) external extractor and an internal ejector. Firing pin travel is 0.26 in (6.6 mm) to keep lock times to a minimum. Finally, an 11 mm (0.43 in) integral dovetail rail located above the receiver is designed to accommodate different types of optical or electro-optical sights. As an option a MIL-STD-1913 rail (Picatinny rail) can be permanently pinned, bonded and bolted to the action, providing a standard interface for many optical systems.
Re:May I suggest (Score:5, Informative)
You understand that there's a difference between the RCMP and the Canadian Forces, right?
The Canadian Rangers' mandate is to provide a military presence and sovereignty patrols in sparsely settled and extremely remote (Northern) regions of the country. The force is made up of reservists, and they're issued a unique uniform -- CADPAT pants, bright red Ranger sweatshirt and baseball cap. The whole idea is to take a group of Northerners and leverage their wilderness and arctic skills. It's a much smarter and more cost-effective approach than attempting to train and equip a group of 18 year-old city kids for the tundra.
Re: (Score:3)
How about a modern .308 bolt-action rifle with a synthetic stock? The caliber is more than adequate; the stock won't be affected by the elements; and a bolt-action is very reliable. It's extremely simple and easy to keep clean. Almost any brand will do.
Yes, of course. Because of the shortage of wood in Canada right?
Re: (Score:3)
The Finns came up with a good solution with their reworked Mosins: 3-piece wooden stocks. They left gaps between the pieces to allow for expansion and contraction with ambient air temperature and humidity.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. These are backwoods weapons that see little to no maintenance. They don't get depot cleaning and parts aren't available. (Check out where and how the rangers operate).
I shoot bolt action rifles and after a while you need to strip the bolts and clean them. The Lee Enfields may not see that for years if ever, and they still have to shoot, since the Ranger's life probably depends on it.
So it's not "almost any brand" since few brands have that kind of reliability and track record.
it's going to b
Re: (Score:2)
How about the Lee-Enfield .303?
Obsoleting something because it's old is stupid. If they were obsoleting it because of requirements it doesn't fulfill outweighing the requirements the replacement doesn't fulfill, I can see it being a viable option.
But as it is, using the age as an argument is foolish. There's plenty of tech we use that's far older design.
It weight is a problem, do a root cause analysis, asking a few why's.
1: Why is weight a problem now?
1a: Rengers have to carry more other stuff.
1aq: Why
Re:May I suggest RTFA? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:May I suggest RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also bullshit. For a weapon this age, there are no patents, and parts can and are supplied by a multitude of vendors. The number of vendors that specialize on supplying parts for firearms that are no longer produced is quite high.
What I see is an unfounded belief that buying long-term non-OEM support will be more expensive than buying support for a new weapon. In the real world, it's the other way around - new weapons are far more expensive to support. Never mind all the other costs of switching.
Mark my words: Five years from now, there are going to be Canadian news articles about how the original budget was blown several times over.
My guess: Someone has been promised kickbacks and incentives, and the choice of a replacement has already been made. It will now be followed by a circus to "determine" that it's the best choice. And it will end up costing the tax payers a fortune. I.e. a smaller version of the F-35 scam. Follow the money trail.
Re:May I suggest RTFA? (Score:4)
My guess: Someone has been promised kickbacks and incentives, and the choice of a replacement has already been made. It will now be followed by a circus to "determine" that it's the best choice. And it will end up costing the tax payers a fortune. I.e. a smaller version of the F-35 scam. Follow the money trail.
DING, DING, DING! And we have our winner! Money and votes are the only motivations here. Nothing else makes sense. Money, some manufacturer is going to get a juicy multi-year exclusive contract. Votes, some MP is going to be able to say, "look how many jobs I brought into our district!"
a quick search (Score:5, Interesting)
...reveals that Colt Canada will be producing the new ranger rifle, the RFP was put to pasture last month. My thinking is that the stock will be a sealed beech rather than abs plastic (which would become brittle in the cold), keep the ten round box but chamber the rifle for .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) and keep the turn bolt action.
Re: a quick search (Score:2)
But...Bolt Action??
Why the preference for bolt action? Is there some unique requirement that rules out Automatics?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that seems...odd. Modern military small unit tactics are built entirely around volume of fire - it's why automatics were developed and modern service rifles are the way they are.
Re: a quick search (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah that seems...odd.
Nothing `odd' about it. Canadian Rangers aren't involved in an arms race. Bears and whatnot haven't evolved much since 1914, and they haven't been issued bear shaped body armor or fully automatic laser claws.
Thus, a reliable bolt action rifle remains sufficient. Traipsing around Arctic tundra with a heavy, high maintenance semi auto just to fend off the wildlife would be silly.
Bolt action rifles are still standard issue [wikipedia.org] in the US military, ubiquitous in LE arsenals and remain wildly popular with civilians for whom new bolt action designs continue to appear. Once you exceed 5.56 NATO and 7.62×39mm calibers bolt action is by far the most common rifle action type for non-military applications.
Re: a quick search (Score:4, Informative)
Bears and whatnot haven't evolved much since 1914
Actually there is a new species appearing due to global warming, the Pizzly bear, a cross between a Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear, so even bigger and thinks of people as food. It's new enough that the Inuit don't have a name for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: a quick search (Score:5, Informative)
The conditions and primary mission of the Canadian Rangers also drives the choice of bolt action vs a semi-automatic. Compared to more modern firearms, the Lee-Enfield is built with fairly loose tolerances, so the barrel and action can expand and contract in response to the heat of firing and the extreme cold often found in the Arctic without failing. (when shooting an attacking polar bear at less than 200m, making sure the weapon works is far more important than obtaining sub-MOA accuracy.) The weapon also has to be easily field-stripped even when wearing gloves. Being a Commonwealth country, we still have lots and lots of WW1 issue rifles, making their use very cost effective. The only reason the Canadian Forces wants to replace it is because nobody has made parts for them in decades, so things like firing pins and trigger springs are becoming scarce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is certainly some craft to making a sturdy firing pin besides the physical shape: correct alloy, hardening etc.. In fact, the shape has quite some latitude as long as it makes contact in the right places. But, if firing pins were the primary concern for servicing these rifles, there are plenty of gunsmiths / machine shops that can and do make production runs like this.
RTFA (Score:2)
These guns are for defense against big predators and not for small unit tactics. The other issue is that the relatively complex mechanism of an automatic rifle is prone to icing up. Even AKs freeze solid in the north
Re: (Score:2)
No - They don't have the stopping power and the range required. The large predators they're encountering are polar bears. Shooting one with a shotgun would only make it enraged.
Re: (Score:3)
kill range on a scattershot using tri-ball 12 is 17 yards (anything smaller and ALL you're gonna do is piss it off). A polar bear can clear fifty one feet VERY fast. And they have very thick fur, so unless you catch it in the eye, you ain't killing it at range with a shotgun.
Re: (Score:2)
The doctrine of suppressive area fire came about with close quarters battle in jungle and urban settings, where the utility of aimed fire from a long stand-off distance is not in play much. In the treeless Canadian arctic, CQB is not a thing. The rate of fire with a smooth bolt action is not much worse than a semi-auto for a trained operator, and has bolt action has good cold weather reliability. Also... .308 has an awful lot of recoil for full-auto -- essentially unusable for most mortals. The selected
Re: a quick search (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dust. Dirt. Mud. Polar Bears. Soul freezing temperatures. Polar Bears. Mud. Dust. Dirt. Rocks.
Polar Bears.
Re: a quick search (Score:4, Informative)
More accurate, don't jam as much in cold weather. If a Lee fails to fire, you can pull the pin back again without moving the bolt. If a bear is coming at me and the rifle fails to fire, do I want to pull a pin back and then it'll fire, or have to go through the drill of making the firearm safe, emptying the round from the chamber, then loading the next round then pray it fires that time around.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So a moose is quite harmless but an Elk is not? ... the few I saw while googleing don't seem able to kill or stop a polar bear, sorry. Shooting a polar bear with with pellet ammunition sounds retarded to me.
Is that your message?
Can recommend a "tactical shotgun"
Re: (Score:2)
..sorry. Shooting a polar bear with with pellet ammunition sounds retarded to me.
Sorry, but ever looked at shotgun slug ammo?
Yes, thanks, that was what I wanted to reply.
Re: a quick search (Score:4, Informative)
Moose have terrible eye sight, if you're up wind of them they get curious as to what you are and can run you down unintentionally. I learned this the hard way in Gross Mourne when one chased me down a trail - would have run me over had it not been for the park ranger who scared it away (took 2 tries, after the first try it came back and started running at us again). It was not-rutting season and it was a female.
Re: (Score:2)
The Rangers are there to convince Russia not to claim all the oil rights to the Arctic.
Which generally does not entail getting into firefights which is why they don't need full auto weapons. In international law all that is needed is presence.
Bull moose are only dangerous for about two weeks during the rut
Did you even do a search on moose attacks? They happen year around.
You don't want a rifle, but rather a tactical shotgun.
A starving bear in the high arctic will not be scared off by a shotgun. There is plenty of food around Churchill. If you are the only food around the bear will be much more persistent. By the way those tactical shotguns in Churchill are stored indoor where they are warm. A tactical shotgu
Re: a quick search (Score:5, Informative)
1. bolt action because you don't need 30 rounds rapid to drop a polar bear.
2. bolt action because automatics are high maintenance and require training for effective maintenance. A bolt action is just a case of unlock, remove bolt, clean bolt, shove a pipecleaner through the barrel and pull it through the breech. Done.
3. bolt action because they are as quick to clear a jam as it is to clean. Shed bolt, ramrod down the muzzle, bolt back in, cock it.
4. bolt action because jamming is an extremely rare occurrence.
5. bolt action because anything with any more complicated of an action is just n+1 more components that are liable to fail at exactly the wrong moment.
Re: (Score:2)
given the land speed of a Polar Bear if you need to shoot more than 8 rounds to drop said bear then thats just ammo that will be in the gun when the polar bear EATS YOU AND YOUR GUN.
do they have a snowmobile big enough to mount a Vulcan??
Re: (Score:3)
I would think so, the deck-mounted platform only weighs 6 tonnes. You'd get that on the back of a longbase Hummer - or a Bradley.
M61 Gatling CIWS: when you absolutely, positively gotta cut every motherfucker in half with a wall of 20mm tungsten sabot.
Re: a quick search (Score:4, Informative)
AK-47, that swedish FNC variant, RK-62
Replace .303 British with an intermediate cartridge? For bear and moose?
Dude. Shut up. Stop typing stuff. Just stop.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A slightly better search would have told you that tender was cancelled in 2011 and a new one issued this year; they're holding the new selection process next year.
Enfield .303? Wow!! I know these rifles. (Score:3)
To imagine the same weapon used so heavily in the tropics, mud and monsoon being noted for its reliability in Arctic conditions is amazing. But this is a very simple basic weapon. Even India is phasing them out, apparently.
Re:Enfield .303? Wow!! I know these rifles. (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting my gun license in a couple months and it is on the list of guns I want. I spent a week up north working with the Canadian Military and a bit with the Rangers and I enjoyed it immensely. They get an allowance to purchase their own equipment. Once out on the tundra they revert to the traditional garb as they found the high-tech stuff doesn't work well.
Re: (Score:2)
Picked one of them up ten years or so ago. Smoothest cycling bolt-action I've ever seen....
Re: (Score:3)
The Indian ones are typically in 762x51 NATO (aka 308 winchester) not 303 brit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enfield .303? Wow!! I know these rifles. (Score:4, Interesting)
To imagine the same weapon used so heavily in the tropics, mud and monsoon being noted for its reliability in Arctic conditions is amazing. But this is a very simple basic weapon. Even India is phasing them out, apparently.
Not really, all those late 19th century bolt action rifles were extremely reliable, that's why the bolt action is still the most popular rifle action in use today which says something about the soundness of Nikolaus von Dreyse's original design that first saw the light of day back in 1824. This type of gun has been used in the high Andes in S-America, jungles in Africa/America/Asia and deserts around the world. The German Mausers and Russian Mosin Nagants operated just as reliably in those places as the Lee Enfield and long as you had proper gun oil that didn't sieze the gun up in extreme cold they did well in the extreme Arctic too. Bolt action Enfields and Russian Mosin Nagants are still in widespread use by the Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and througout the Middle East. I've seen these old guns in the hands of Hamas guerillas in the Gaza strip (At least one was a WWI Turkish Mauser by the look of it) and by rebels fighters in Arabia. People may think that's comical but in the hands of a decent marksman some of these old war horses will still out shoot a Government trooper armed with a brand spanking new M4 Carbine, G-36 or AK-47.
About time (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous (Score:3)
If only the hardware that we use in computers could have such a track record.
Nobody wants 100 year old computational hardware. Giving hardware longer longevity at this point would be pointless as it becomes obsolete around the same time it fails. Would you buy a 286 PC today from someone who said it was reliable? No, of course not - and that would only be around 30 years old. Furthermore nothing that is made today will be of any significance in 100 years.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly: it's more expensive to do the same computations on old hardware then it is on new hardware, factoring capital and power expenses. Newer hardware is straight up better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that packing in grease and wrapping well and then burying works for long term storage.
I'm surprised (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, it hasn't been produced in a long time (parts wear out), it's for an obsolescent caliber (complicates logistics a bit), and there are better rifles now.
Irrelevant comparisons (Score:2)
If only the hardware that we use in computers could have such a track record.
It can if the use case would remain unchanged for 100 years and that technology improvements would be slow enough. The Voyager probes are around 40 years old and (mostly) still working in very harsh conditions so it clearly can be done. Of course you would be hard pressed to find two products more different than firearms and computers so I'm not sure why this hypothetical comparison was in the summary. The pace of technology improvements in small arms is positively glacial compared with that of computers
Takes me back. (Score:2)
The first rifle the British Army put in my hands was a Lee Enfield. It was the same as my grandfather would have used in WWII.
It is probably the easiest rifle to use, load and fire. Sadly, it was not as easy to clean as the SLR (7.62 L1A1) that I spent more time with later.
The end of the Smelly... (Score:2)
The short-magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) isn't called the "Smelly" for no reason. It's got an eight-ton trigger pull, stock forearm bands that will drill a hole in your shoulder while you carry it, a steel butt plate that will make an attempt to dislocate your shoulder when fired...
But it is reliable. In fact, think of it as the bolt action flavor of an AK-47.
I hope what they end up with serves as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You show your incredible ignorance. The rangers do in fact hunt with those rifles (are required to do so as part of survival training), and of course as armed forces practice and patrol with those arms.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does any military or police unit have firearms? Primarily to shoot PEOPLE. The arctic meanwhile is becoming increasingly militarily significant as the vast undersea oil fields become accessible and set off a new land-grab among the major powers. I'd be surprised if there aren't a fair number of shots fired over establishing new territorial rights.
Can I have some of what you're smoking? (Score:2)
A land-grab in the ocean? The Battle of Ellesmere Island?
I think there's about as much chance of having a small arms conflict in the Arctic as there is of Putin invading Greenland riding a polar bear. What exactly do you envision? Canadian troops invading Novaya Zemlya? The Arctic is unpopulated in a way that is difficult to describe. There is no one to shoot, and even getting there is a huge logistical problem. I'm pretty sure you've never been to the Arctic, but for the sake of argument, is there any basi
Re: (Score:2)
A land-grab in the ocean? The Battle of Ellesmere Island?
I think there's about as much chance of having a small arms conflict in the Arctic as there is of Putin invading Greenland riding a polar bear. What exactly do you envision? Canadian troops invading Novaya Zemlya? The Arctic is unpopulated in a way that is difficult to describe. There is no one to shoot, and even getting there is a huge logistical problem. I'm pretty sure you've never been to the Arctic, but for the sake of argument, is there any basis to these ideas of yours?
It's when reading things like this that I miss the Cold War ..... :)
CFS Alert, on the northern tip if Ellesmere Island is an intelligence station (COMINT & SIGINT). I had two tours there, 6 months each, during the lat '70s.
During my 2nd tour, we had a base defense exercise. The scenario (such as it was), was that for some strange reason, the Soviets decided to drop a regiment of paratroopers to attack the base while the Bears flew overhead to rain nuclear destruction on North America. Our mission was to
Re: (Score:3)
So if the press are there and he takes his shirt off it's about evens?
Re: (Score:2)
The arctic lands are already grabbed by the relevant nations. There is mot suddenly some new land, just because the ice is melting.
For the rangers the main concern are wild animals and not people.
Re: (Score:2)
Standard parts and ammo (Score:2)
If you have "unfailing reliability" why change it? It's a weapon not a computer.
Several possible reasons come to mind. Using more standard ammunition is probably the most likely reason. Same with parts and repairs. Good as the 303 might be, it might be causing some significant logistical heartburn getting specialty ammo out to remote locations. They can be converted to a standard 7.62 NATO round but it's probably not worth the trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
The reliability of the Lee-Enfield is not the issue. Rather, according to TFA, they've run out of spare parts to maintain/repair them.
Therefore, they're looking for a modern, off-the-shelf, firearm with similar reliability, accuracy, and stopping power to replace them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely. They'll be going with another bolt action rifle, almost certainly chambered in 7.62x51mm.
The Rangers have no need for automatic fire and bolt action is more reliable when dealing with arctic conditions.
Re: (Score:2)