Slashdot Mirror
No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade
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.
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.
...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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I saw a documentary on these poor saps and they were scurrying around in snow tunnels and using rifles against huge manned robots. They managed to get one by tying a cable around its legs using one of the few little airplanes that they had, but in the end it was a rout.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
If you had read the article, you would have noticed that “the supply chain no longer has the parts to sustain this weapon long term.” This is because the weapon is old and - from a military point of view - obsolete, so spare parts are no longer manufactured. It'll probably be quite a bit cheaper to re-equip with a newer rifle than to re-establish a Lee-Enfield production line - especially considering they are likely to pick an off-the-shelf rifle to equip a rather small force.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
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.
So if the press are there and he takes his shirt off it's about evens?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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!"
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
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 the Blitzkreig brought the Germans into a faceoff with the British, the autos weren't yet deployed.
It turns out that the Lee-Enfield action has a number of features that make it VERY much faster to operate than other bolt-action military weapons of the time. The bolt has a very small throw angle. It has rear, not front, locking lugs (out where there's lots of clearance and little stress and opportunity for dirt to gum them up). The action is almost glassy-smooth. The bolt ball is located where it can be opened by the thumb, while slapping it closed with the palm, doesn't require accurate positioning of the hand, and guides the hand back to the correct position to fire, letting the user's attention remain on the target scene and sight picture. It cocks on closing (rather than on opening as Mausers do), dedicating essentially all the energy on opening to case extraction, rather than splitting it with spring-cocking and keeping the opening and closing work closer to equal.
The result is that, with a modicum of practice, a rifleman with a Lee-Enfield can achieve higher firing rates than the operator of a machine gun. (Machine gun rates are deliberately limited to make them easier to control and aim, avoid wasting ammunition, and reduce overheating, burnout, and jamming.) It can't keep it up as LONG, because the Lee Enfield has a small, fixed, magazine. But it can fire a couple fast, controlled, bursts - just what is needed in many situations - using a powerful rifle cartridge.
By comparison the Germans were armed with things like the recently developed "assault rifle" - a short-barreled select-fire rifle (for easy handling in cramped hallways or popping up out of a tank hatch), firing a low-powered cartridge. (Militaries had figured out that a gun should be designed to WOUND, not kill: Kill a soldier and you take one out of action - wound him and you use up him, his buddy, a medic, and a lot of infrastructure and supplies taking care of him and shipping him back home.)
The Blitzkreig stormed across much of Europe and encountered only limited resistance, typically armed with the likes of the slower bolt-action Mausers. Then they came up against the British. They knew the Brits were armed with bolt-actions and believed their own propaganda about their lack of resolve. So they expected to sweep them up as they had their previous encounters. They came charging out, and were blasted back, repeatedly, by withering fire. There are records of communications from the front where the officers were claiming all the Brits were armed with machine guns. (I hear one of these records is a recording - with the officer in question being killed in mid-message by a round from one of those Lee-Enfields.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Epoxy is a thermosetting plastic so is very unlike nylon. It's already as brittle as it is going to get at room temperature - it keeps the same toughness at lower temperatures because it doesn't have a glass transition temperature like nylon does. It's due to the two materials having very different structures. Epoxy has a lot of crosslinking, like a mesh, while nylon doesn't, like spaghetti. Cool the spaghetti down and there's a lot more resistance to it moving about on the plate until suddenly it's all stuck frozen together - glass transition temperature.
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.