Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick284
With licensed manufacturing on our own soil, I can't see parts or replacements being an issue. That's why the licensing agreement was used.
As for the longevity of the new rifle. Lets put it this way. The No 4's currently in use were factory refurbed in the early to mid 1950's that's 60 years!
That's straight up linseed oiled walnut hardware, the new rifles are laminate hardwood, I'll give the edge to the laminate.
The action and metal work on the No. 4's was carbon steel with parkerization, or high temperature paint. The new rifles are stainless steel, again advantage to the new rifles. The action on the No. 4's while good for mud and trenches was weak, and had its flaws(extractors, headspace, cold weather reliability) the new action is not as exposed in its workings, but is also un tried in the long run in arctic conditions to this ill call a tie.
Hmm the new rifle ain't gonna be any worse, than the No. 4, maybe a bit better I'd say.......
|
Your making an assumption that the same rifles remained in service. Many of the Enfields I saw with the Rangers when turned in were beyond repair and were general junked. Another rifle was issued in its place. We were fortunate at the time to have lots of surplus rifles.
But you first point is correct. We will have parts and the ability to produce the parts for the foreseeable future.