Canadian Ranger Rifles, 2007

[FNC1]

Question: Has the Valmet Hunter ever been used by the Rangers?

The reason I ask is that I have read in several places that the reason it escaped being prohibited was that some of them had been issued to rangers.

On the face of it it seems a good choice, it has the action of an AK..reliability in arctic conditions should be assured, well built with excellent sights and readily available scope mounts and it can be had in 223 or 7.62.

Now I am not recomending it for a current buy ( they are out of production after all ), but it would seem sound reasoning for anyone who may have been looking for a modern ranger rifle in the 90's.

Any of you rangers ever seen one in service or is this another myth.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[10x]

Question: Has the Valmet Hunter ever been used by the Rangers?

The reason I ask is that I have read in several places that the reason it escaped being prohibited was that some of them had been issued to rangers.

On the face of it it seems a good choice, it has the action of an AK..reliability in arctic conditions should be assured, well built with excellent sights and readily available scope mounts and it can be had in 223 or 7.62.

Now I am not recomending it for a current buy ( they are out of production after all ), but it would seem sound reasoning for anyone who may have been looking for a modern ranger rifle in the 90's.

Any of you rangers ever seen one in service or is this another myth.

No, this is a myth.
A new Ranger rifle is being considered. A major who should know has let it out that the "new" ranger rifle is at least ten years away. They have enough lee enfields for issue and spares for at least ten years, and the caliber will most likely be .308.
A long long time ago winchester 94s were issued to rangers - they have been out of the system for many, many years.

[Alfred]

In the records of the debates over the Ross Rifle there were complaints by those organizations using the various Lee Enfield Rifles (Constabulary or Militia , perhaps Mounted Police I suppose) about the firing pin not having enough clearance, which caused many misfires in winter weather.
I suppose that modern low temperature lubricants would have reduced this problem. Not many good low temp lubes were available back then.

Arctic explorers often prefered the much simpler Remington Rolling Block rifles, since these could be operated without any lube at all.

Perhaps some Rangers have rusty rifles because they were always taught to not lube the rifle in cold weather.

Salt air can rust a rifle in hours if not well protected, I used to live in Florida ( about 35 years ago) and saw quite a few new rifles get badly rusted within months of purchase, and sometimes on the racks of smaller shops before ever being sold.
Mountain air here can be almost as bad, the "finish" of many older rifles and shotguns look more like and old cross cut saw, browned like a Brown Bess barrel by daily accumulation of fine rust and the occasional wipe down with whatever oil is handy.
Sometimes the hand prints of a previous owner are rusted deeply into a shotgun frame, each finger forming a noticable groove in the surface, the fingerprints clearly visible on polishing a century later.

Seems like the Ranger Enfields would have been given a good painted finish before being issued, if not then those in service would probably benefit from getting one before rust gets any worse.

Danish troops assigned to similar duties are still issued Bolt Action rifles in .30/06, Some M1917 rifles may still be in inventory from the literature. Like the confusion over the British calling the M1917 rifle a Springfield there seems to be a tendency for the Danes to label Model 70 Winchesters issued for arctic duty as M1917 rifles because these are also in .30/06. They identify the rifle with the shared cartridge.

The tendency for some No.4 Mk I* bolt heads to rotate out of the track seems to me to be due to vertical tilt of the front of the bolt due to excessive clearance at the rear of the reciver. Due either to a poorly fitted bolt body or spreading of the receiver walls.
The clearance cut for the front lefthand magazine feed lip appears to have removed more metal than it should on receivers I've examined that have displayed a tendency for the bolt head to jump the track.
Some of the Savage receivers I've looked at had cuts far deeper and wider than others.
The modification may cause no problem if everything else about the receiver is spot on, but the oversize cut of some receivers coupled with a worn or ill fitting bolt wouldn't have shown up in testing of earlier and better made rifles.

Bending the lefthand lip upwards just enough to contact the bolt head as it passes that point has all but eliminated this problem on a couple of these rifles.

As for minor defects of some Long Branch rifles. It would appear that much of the later WW2 production ended up being sent to allies like China, where reports on performance in the field would be sketchy at best.


The Black bear around here seldom get over 300 pounds, with less than 200 lb more common , but I have been charged by an old and rather surly specimen that would go 350 lb or better.
Luckily a small stream between us distracted the bear. They seem to get a bit paranoid of losing their footing on wet rocks. At least thats how this old fellow reacted.
Since I had only a camera and no weapons at all its a good thing.
I didn't turn away from the bear, but I guess I set the worlds record for the moonwalk. Not turning away probably made the difference.
A .303 would be more useful than a camera, but even the .30/06 would be a bit light for a big Brown, Grizz , or Polar Bear.

BTW
I didn't get a picture of the bear, had other things on my mind, plus a flash going off would not have helped matters.