Canadian Ranger Rifles, 2007

[K31]

Last summer, I examined a number of rifles that the RANGERS were shooting at our range. They seemed to be pretty sorry specimens! The numbers matched on the bolts, but everything else looked mixed up. The trigger pulls were awful on every one, the safety was malfunctioning on two of them. One had really loose timber, and another was severely cord worn. One lady couldn't hit anything, so I asked to inspect her rifle. It was equipped with the BRITISH stamped ladder sight, but it was installed without the little collar! It was free to move back and forth a quarter inch! The bedding was incorrect on EVERY rifle! The oldest one was 1942, the youngest 1949. I offered to put the defects right, but was told that I would have to go through official channels for permission. Sounds like a headache! If those rifles were mine, I would be tempted to part them out, rather than use them. A really common problem with LB rifles is a defective safety. The cocking piece slips off the sear, if you pull the trigger with the safety engaged. This is most common with the "kicked leg" safety. Hope someone finds this interesting.

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.

[Stevo]

What location was that? All of my Patrol's rifles are in very good mechanical and cosmetic condition. Of course, mine '49 Long Branch is a little more beat up than when I got it issued 6 years ago. Draggin' it around in the bush will do that. Our patrol is entirely equipped with Long Branch rifles.

We do have a consistent problem with the CMk3 rear sights, IE 2 out of 5 are garbage. They work fine, but the battle and peep sights are not square to each other, sometimes vertically, sometimes laterally. It's a manufacturing defect, not related to use.

I'm still choked they cut up the C1's rather than replace the No4's with them.

[stencollector]

I had a look at a Ranger's Enfields during a sov op back in 97. The rifle was dated 56, which was interesting. But the wood was beat, the external of the rifle rusted. This did not stop the fellow from dropping a Caribou with it and sharing some fresh rations with us.

We were to go on another sov op a couple years later, not quite as far North. The weapons section was tasked with inspecting and repairing the rifles up there, so they ordered 30 of everything along with a half dozen barrelled receivers (which were non accountable). Then, while talking with the LCMM in Ottawa, he was told to simply order new rifles (the DND had bought around 1000 of the no4mk2s from the British for this purpose) and exchange them. Rifles are an 'S' class item (controlled by serial number) so I am not sure how that would have worked out.
Anyway, long story short, the ex got cancelled due to operational commitments of the aircraft at the last minute, and the parts languished for years in the weapons shop. A few wall plaques were created for some of the classroom walls from assembled and then deactivated Enfields.

Interesting to note that any rear sights ordered were in fact 800 yd jungle carbine sights. The DND must have been buying it's spares on the world market as well. Also, the forestocks were all that orange DCRA/ Cdn Arsenals new in the cardboard wrap type. The rest of the wood was original WW2 stuff.

Around 2004, I was told that Edmonton garrison weapons shop was busy inspecting another 1200-2000 or more no4mk?? bought from India. Some were for immediate issue and others were being put into stores in 1A (Edmonton) depot.

[K31]

I am on the West coast, so our rifles are subject to salt air. I had heard that our fearless leaders had bought some of the No.4 Mk.2 rifles, but I haven't seen any here. A pity, the No.4 Mk2. is a far better weapon then the LONGBRANCH. I haven't seen any of the ones from INDIA yet, either. Wonder how they look. One of the rangers told me that if a rifle gets sent to VICTORIA for repairs, it is first assessed to determine how long repairs will take. If repairs will take more than an hour, the rifle is stripped, and the action cut in half! I wonder if that story is true. The 1949 C No.4 Mk1* is the most common rifle here, with the crappy fabricated triggerguard. Those things are a cruel joke! Forever setting up the trigger pull when I had one. I gave away my last forged triggerguard to a ranger to use in competitions. He has to give it back before he turns in his rifle!

[Stevo]

"Subjected to salt air" sounds like a euphemism for "not given proper care and maintenance." The Mk2 a "far better weapon" than the Long Branch Mk1*? Hardly. There are plenty of Faz Mk2's in the system now, the only thing that make them "better" is that they've seen less use. What does the "crappy triggerguard" have to do with anything?

[K31]

The fabricated triggerguard is relatively flimsy, and because the trigger is pinned to the guard, any slight knock to the guard can, and often does, change the pull-off. Any military armourer can tell you all about the problems with these guards. The simple fact that the Mk2 has the trigger mounted directly to the action makes them a better weapon. And they all have the good Mk1 rear sight, too. The old style of bolt release on the Mk2 is far more positive than the Mk1* system. I have not seen a defective Mk2 safety, a common LONGBRANCH problem. Even some of the 1949 LB rifles have safety issues. The safety lever was pinned together from two seperate pieces,and they often develop play at the joint. They also wear at the edges of the bolthead release slot, sometimes causing the bolthead to flip up while cycling the bolt. This seems MUCH more common on SAVAGE rifles, though. How would you like that to happen, when JERRY is charging? Or the polar bear is attacking? A friend has a LB rifle that left the factory with only one groove in the barrel! How is that for quality control?

[Claven2]

The fabricated triggerguard is relatively flimsy, and because the trigger is pinned to the guard, any slight knock to the guard can, and often does, change the pull-off. Any military armourer can tell you all about the problems with these guards. The simple fact that the Mk2 has the trigger mounted directly to the action makes them a better weapon. And they all have the good Mk1 rear sight, too. The old style of bolt release on the Mk2 is far more positive than the Mk1* system. I have not seen a defective Mk2 safety, a common LONGBRANCH problem. Even some of the 1949 LB rifles have safety issues. The safety lever was pinned together from two seperate pieces,and they often develop play at the joint. They also wear at the edges of the bolthead release slot, sometimes causing the bolthead to flip up while cycling the bolt. This seems MUCH more common on SAVAGE rifles, though. How would you like that to happen, when JERRY is charging? Or the polar bear is attacking? A friend has a LB rifle that left the factory with only one groove in the barrel! How is that for quality control?

Hmm... I've NEVER had a problem with a LB trigger guar OR a LB safety??? I've owned probably 20+ longbranches now too. In fact, I know for certain that many (most?) of the wartime expedient safeties in British service were retro-fitted with Longbranch "slipper style" safeties after the war out of the spares inventories. The milled guards are nicer, for sure, but frankly, they bend just as asily as the fabricated ones do. Bending these guards is part of fitting them to a rifle during forestock replacement. It's even in the armorer's instructions.

The Mk2 is a better trigger system, I agree, but the No.4Mk2 is not as well made a rifle as the typical Longbranch. The best of both worlds is probably a No.4Mk1/3 - essentially a Longbranch (or Savage) No.4 with the trigger upgraded to Mk2 specification.

Even better, if you could ever find one, would be a 1941 Longbranch converted to No.4Mk1/2 If I ever find one, I'll never sell it - will become my designated "range Enfield".

[RifleDude]

I wonder what happened to all the LB No 4's the Army Cadet units had on their MIU. They were "confiscated" a number of years back when the lieberals didn't think young people aught to be shooting guns. I would have thought that these rifles would at least be re-issued to the Rangers. I know our unit had about 30 on our MIU. They were very well maintained and inspected/repaired annually by a reg force weapons tech.

[K31]

My experience with the No.4 Mk.2 rifles, and the LONGBRANCH rifles, is that LB spent more time on cosmetics than on functionality. The LB safety that looks like a boot will often let the cocking piece slip off the sear when you pull the trigger. When the safety is disengaged, the striker goes forward, catching the half cock notch. I have owned 12 LB rifles, and examined or repaired dozens more. I have seen at least 10 LB made safeties with this problem. I have only encountered this defect on one British rifle, and it had the LB safety. Don't people check these things? I was shocked to find that many of the Ranger rifles suffered from this defect. I once set up the trigger on my LB with the fabricated guard, had it perfect. When another shooter was firing it, she bumped the guard lightly on the wood shooting bench. The rifle instantly got a long, creepy first stage. One of the more competitive rangers ruined his pull off just by removing a magazine! My 1942 MALTBY survived tumbling down a rock slide, in my hands, with no problems at all. It even had a large scratch on the guard, yet the pull remained good. I have carried SAVAGE, LB, MALTBY, BSA, and FAZAKERLY No. 4 rifles for years while hunting and exploring. All have near mint bores, and except for the poor MALTBY, are in really great overall condition. While firing the SAVAGE one day, the bolt came back and almost broke my nose. A quarter inch sheared out of the guide channel, behind the bolthead removal slot. The head jumped out, and the bolt got pulled into my face. I have since examined a number of SAVAGE rifles with similar damage, many of which seem to have seen little use. I have also seen one LB like that. The WW2 FAZ was really crude, and not very accurate. The BSA was accurate, but so crude that I was ashamed to be seen with it! The 2 groove MALTBY was the most accurate of the ww2 No.4's, and looked quite nice. The No.4 Mk.2 rifles surpassed them all in both accuracy and fitting, though the finish wasn't as nice as the LB. Every time we have a .303 shoot, everyone wants to borrow the Mk.2. It has one many prizes, and with stock sights, easily beat a DCRA target rifle. This wasn't a new rifle, either, it shows quite a bit of use. It has the NAVY proofmark, with the N instead of P.

[Claven2]

I submit that you have bad luck. Your 10 of 12 LB safeties having failed and your numerous splintered receiver areas leads me to believe either you are the unluckiest human being on the planet, or you had exceptionally bad rifles sold to you from some snake-oil salesman.

I'm afraid we may had to agree to disagree on this, but from the sounds of things, perhaps you might have better luck with some other pattern of rifle?

If those failure rates were ever observed in service, the Enfield would have been withdrawn during WW1 and replaced with the P14, or in ww2, they would have issued more dispersal MkIII's and a lot less No.4's.