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.
That is because you were using a cheap-ass thermoplastic/synthetic stock instead of a quality fiberglass/synthetic stock.
There are many bolt guns with similar functionality and better performance than the Lee-Enfield.
For example, the Remington 700P weighs the same as an Enfield, but has modern accuracy (0.5 MOA out of the box isn't uncommon), durability (not as effected by temperature swings), and is available with modern cartridges like 308 Win and 300 Win Mag.
Or there are rifles like the Ruger Gunsite Scout, while not combat proven, is cold weather hunting proven, offering a very lightweight package at aroun 7 lbs, 308 Win, better accuracy than the Enfield, a temperature resistant laminate stock, and back up irons.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Wrong. That may apply to your military with its huge budgets and tiny political oversight.
In the developed world, we do not feel obliged to be the worlds policeman and do not fund our services according to that idea.
Yes, they do tend to get a lot of money but it's not limitless.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Full disclosure: I'm 56 years old, and still own a Lee-Enfield that was given to me by my father when I was 13, which originally belonged to HIS father. It still works as well as it did the day I got it.
I grew up in Labrador, hunting fishing and camping. I had two tours of CFS Alert, at 82 deg 30 min North. I've been to Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Churchill, Tuktoyuktuk, Iqualiuit, and very many places in between. Believe me, I've seen cold - but cold isn't even the biggest problem.
The Rangers are generally either Innu or Amerind. Technically, they are on duty or on call 24/7. Most of those involved in the Rangers still follow their traditional lifestyles - they hunt, fish, and trap for a living, and spend their time outdoors.
They don''t carry multiple weapons - they don't have the space or weight to spare, given the rest of their kit. That's why the Lee-Enfield has lasted as long as it has - it can be used to hunt for seal, moose or caribou, or defence against moose (ugly, nasty brutes - very evil tempered), wolves, or polar bears. You can hit a target out to about 350 yards or so - more than sufficient for any practical use, and long enough that you don't have to do extra laundry because a polar bear decided that you looked like a snack.
In the meantime - the rifle is carried around on your back while you're going through thick brush, getting banged and nicked as you go. It's sitting in the bottom of a canoe, or a kayak. it's getting banged around while sitting on the running boards of the snowmobile. It's in the bottom of a 12 foot motor boat while you go from island to island in the Arctic Ocean, getting banged around and covered with salt spray. It's stuffed where ever it can fit on the dogsled (yes, they are still used in some places). And after all that crap and abuse, you just have to pick the thing up, and it will hit what you aim at. No fuss, no muss.
Bottom line: Stand me in the world's best gun shop, give me unlimited credit, and tell me I can take one - and ONLY one weapon. I'll take the Lee-Enfield, every time. And I'll still be using it when every other weapon there has died of old age or just disintegrated because of the environment.
I pity the poor bastard that has to make the decision on the replacement. I'm just glad it's not me.
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.