Everything is cold in the winter. I'll take the lighter weight, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by K31
Printable View
Everything is cold in the winter. I'll take the lighter weight, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by K31
I have seen too many broken injection moulded stocks broken in the cold. There was consideration given to a version of the Ruger 77Mk.II stainless. Ruger was prepared to mould a Ranger motif into the reecess of the paddle stock. This idea was scuppered because a) of cost, and, b) minimum order was for 5,000 units. I also suggested that the Ruger stock could be broken too easily, and the Ruger rear sight is fragile.
But a rugged commercial type rifle would meet the needs of the Ranger program. Scope mounting option would be an asset. Consideration could be given to a 5.56 or 7.62 version, or both, depending on where the rifles were to be issued.
I never cared much for that Ruger stock, it seems to flexible. I remember looking on the Rangers website a few years ago, and it showed a No.4 converted to 7.62, with a scope, bipod, synthetic stock, etc. They said that consideration was being given to converting the stock of No.4's to 7.62. What a mistake! Imagine the expense, and all the other "improvements" would make the rifle weigh even more than it does now. I think STEVO has the right idea about the Savage, but I still think a laminated wood stock would be better in the arctic. I see fewer problems with Savage and Ruger rifles than most other commercial rifles, but I have no idea how the new Savage Accutrigger would hold up under rough service. I think the standard trigger would probably be better.
Bear in mind, the Enfields are built to take years of hard abuse to military specs. The Savages are NOT built to milspec and NOT built to take that kind of abuse. The Synth might seem like a good idea. Show of hands - how many people remember the early C7 stocks and their cold weather performance? Milspec was subsequently altered to a more durable product. Has the Savage undergone similar testing? I doubt it.
I agree. A modern laminate would be FAR superior to Zytel. If a choice had to be made between a Savage and a Ruger, I would suggest a Ruger with some mods to include:Quote:
Originally Posted by K31
-BEAD BLASTED matte Stainless version.
-Trigguer guard and floorplate assembly changed to the stronger 1-piece steel assembly available from Brownells.
-NO SCOPE. Devise a peep sight for the rifle. Scopes won;t take the abuse some of the inuit will subject the rifle to.
-7.62 as a minimum. NOT 5.56. There be polar bears up there!
-Actions should be gauged to ensure they do not have a negative slope on the sides (common on Rugers) - this prevents bedding. All these rifles should be bedded IMHO.
-Ditch the stock safety and go for the Mauser-type flag. WAY more reliable.
Sounds good, I'll take one!
No thank you.
I need a rear vernier sight that will allow me to shoot accurately out to 500 metres. Additionally in a calibre I can stop a bear with.
Frankly I see no reason why we can't just rebarrel the No4 Enfield and remanufacture as many parts as we need. I don't mind sticking with the .303 Brit.
Regardless of that I have recently been informed that the Rangers are:
1. Getting New Uniforms
2. Getting new Rifles
Don't expect to see anything within the next two years (or more).
The Rangers are on the cusp of some considerable change and are ramping up for a much more serious military support role.
It is my understanding that the new rifle will be:
1. A Bolt Action
2. In 7.62 NATO
Outside of that no one is talking.
Further to that, also will have:Quote:
Originally Posted by Riflechair
-rail for a scope,
-synthetic stock.
Will be replaced by Patrol Group in numerical order, which puts us 4th in line, Richard. Don't expect to see anything for at least 4 years. I can't imagine a vernier sight coming as standard equipment on any replacement rifle.
I was told by someone who would know, that there is a "sh-t-load" of No4s in Borden for the Rangers, so unless there is a lack of techs to service them, or it has been decided to go for a throw-away rifle, I'd doubt there will be any big changes soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevo
Perhaps the Gov't should run a few courses on basic rifle maintenance before issuing any rifles.