Canadian Ranger Rifles, 2007

[Claven2]

Not sure on the rest (rangers who are mambers can answer) but Marlins WERE issued to the PCMR. Not the 336. It was the Model 1936.

This is simply the Model 1893, re-designated as the Model 1936 and then again re-designated as the Model 36 in 1937.

Such a rifle would be C-broad arrowed.

[tiriaq]

Saw a rack of these C/l\ Marlins for sale at Hallam's Sporting Goods on Yonge St. back in the '60s. They were in very nice shape, don't know if they were ex-PCMR; it was suggested at the time that they were Dept. of Mines and Technical Surveys.
While it is possible that a young Inuk Ranger had the same rifle his father had used, I would suspect that the journalist confused the "same rifle" and "same type of rifle". Who knows? Not all Inuit abuse and neglect their equipment by any means. I replaced a sear in a sported 1896 MLE that had been used in the same family since at least the 1930s. It was certainly in serviceable condition.
Model 1892, 1894, 1895 Winchesters, Savage 1899s in .303 and .250-3000 were all used in the North. I even fished the remains of a Lee Speed sporting rifle out of Hudson's Bay. Saw .280 Ross cases found along the Maguse River valley on the west coast of Hudson's Bay. But '94 Winchesters are no longer common on the Barrens. Most of the ones I saw were ones brought north by Southerners who had moved north. One factor is the calibre. Most Inuit hunters prefer something flat shooting with light recoil. .22-.250 and .223 are very popular. The stainless rifles have a real following, because they don't turn colour as fast. Injection moulded synthetic stocks do break in the cold.

[K31]

I have seen some Inuit guns, and I was surprised to find them in much better shape than our west coast guns. A fellow brought me a PCMR 94 once, that he wanted cleaned. I had to drill and replace several screws, and I had the metal soaking in kerosene for a week, trying to dissolve the rust. I must add, though, that the rifle was still functioning perfectly when he brought it to me! Spruce needles are the bane of most rifles out here, they find their way into everything. They are the reason I believe the 94 is more suited to the woods, they pretty much seal out most of the needles. You can't get away from them either! They fall from the trees constantly. Whenever I carry a LEE ENFIELD in the woods, I use the breech cover to keep the needles out. They don't usually cause problems with the SMLE, but they will jam a No.4. You can blow them out easily on the SMLE, but they accumulate under the rear sight on the No.4 rifles. This cost me a deer once. I surprised it as I emerged from a spruce thicket, and when I went to shoot, the bolt wouldn't open all the way. By the time I cleaned it out, the deer was gone. Good thing it wasn't a hungry bear.

[Hungry]

Oh man.... just hearing about ANY rust on a service issued boomstick makes me cringe.... Sorry to hear about the patrol's rifles being rusty and some of the attitudes about 'not cleaning my issued riflr.' WTF

Peace out

Barney

[K31]

Yeah, it sure is heartbreaking to see. The 30-30 wasn't owned by a ranger, his grandpa was a PCMR. He must be rolling in his grave, I think he would have wanted his rifle to be taken care of better. They sold them after the war for $5 to the guys who carried them, I even have the receipt for a EDDYSTONE M17, but the government identifies it as a SPRINGFIELD in the records. Lots of M17's are still around from those days. The current Ranger patrol is taking better care of the rifles, but many of them have rifles that are quite badly worn, and are really too far gone for accurate shooting. I wonder if the government could afford some new barrels, and maybe a teflon finish? Even the black stove paint might help. It is hard for people to have pride in their equipment when it looks worn out to start, I often hear guys grumbling about being given worn out rifles.

[Surpmil]

I'd agree that the Mk2s from 1954/55 are the best of the British-built No4s and in terms of design functionality (aside from the Trials rifles), the best No4s period. That MkI* modification was a big mistake, and it's hard to see the necessity for it, since manufacturing in Canada and the US was under less pressure than that in the UK. The Mk2s also have a smaller diameter cut out in the underside of the receiver just forward of the butt socket. Not sure that makes any difference in use, but it may reduce receiver flex. Have never noticed any problem with LB safeties, but then the one's I've owned and handled have been in pretty nice condition. The post-war rifles should be the best in terms of quality on either side of the Atlantic. The trigger on the guard was a poor idea and why they held it over from the No1 to the No4 is anyone's guess.

Considering Long Branch was built up from bare earth in 1940 I'd say they did damn well. As did REL.

All of the modifications received War Department approval, so presumably there were trials first.

Will have to look more closely at the 'lady slipper' safeties from now on.

This thread demonstrates why building the No4 in stainless steel specifically for the Rangers was considered.

[sdh1911]

Gees, I thought you fellas up their were saddled up with The Parker Hale 82 or something like that (the most accurate rifle I've ever shot that I didn't build)SDH

[K31]

I never could figure out why LB and SAVAGE switched production to the Mk.1*, either. You would think that it would take almost as long to mill the bolthead release slot as it would the channel for the Mk.1 bolthead release, and as the small parts mostly came from feeder factories, the extra part wouldn't make much difference to production. A Korean war vet recently told me about the bolthead on his rifle flipping up during a Chinese attack, but he didn't remember if it was a LONGBRANCH made rifle. I think it must have been, because when I showed him a No.4 Mk1, he had never seen one with that type of bolt release. He said that he wished his rifle had that system. A stainless N0.4 would sure be neat! One of those, with a laminated stock, Mk.2 trigger, and Mk.1 sight would be the ultimate Ranger rifle. Many of the Rangers, though, have expressed interest in the No.5 carbine. Maybe the stainless, laminated No.5 with a Mk2 trigger would be best. Wouldn't that look neat!?!

[Stevo]

There's no need to go to the crazy expense of new-build stainless Lee-Enfield rifles. The army just needs to buy a bunch of these Savage 10FCM "Scout" rifles. They're 3 pounds lighter, in a modern calibre and easily scope-able for us older guys. One of these with an Aimpoint on it would rock.

[K31]

Hey, that would be great! But it would be nice to have a laminated stock. Those synthetic ones suck in the Winter! C-O-L-D!