Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:05 AM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
So I attempted a little self-education and perused the rangers website. Though they are a branch of the Reserves, in purpose/role they seem to be primarily a search and rescue/ eyes and ears sort of force. They aren't trained to take on foreign military forces they might encounter, hence the bolt action hunting rifle rather than an automatic or sniper variant. Makes sense. HOWEVER, that said, I would think the weapons needed would be no different than the rifle that would be supplied to park wardens, conservation officers, etc. to deal with problem bears, angry elk, moose, etc. I'm pretty sure they don't get $6,700 rifles. Strikes me any quality rifle with a synthetic or laminate stock with stainless steel barrel/action would do the trick.

Problem with the current purchase is that we aren't even buying it from the manufacturer. We are buying it from Colt, who will then have to pay licensing fee etc. to Sako. Should have just gone to Sako, or better yet, order 6500 Sakos through Cabelas.
The rangers were involved in the requirements for the rifle to meet their needs. The rifles did not cost $6K, the rifles, parts, accessories, tech spec and likely 20 years of support for factory level repair likely cost the price noted.

You could buy 6500 rifles, but what do you do when they need repair? What happens in 15 years when they need depot level maintainence so they can be reissued?
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 06-26-2015, 12:35 PM
Matt L.'s Avatar
Matt L. Matt L. is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Whitecourt
Posts: 5,818
Default

Really boggles my mind how many people here refuse to listen to those who know what's going on. What makes some of you guys think you know better than the military (who are kinda in that line of work) on how to procure arms?
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-26-2015, 12:52 PM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L. View Post
Really boggles my mind how many people here refuse to listen to those who know what's going on. What makes some of you guys think you know better than the military (who are kinda in that line of work) on how to procure arms?
This is the internet after all. Everyone gets an opinion....
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-26-2015, 02:16 PM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheus32 View Post

You could buy 6500 rifles, but what do you do when they need repair? What happens in 15 years when they need depot level maintainence so they can be reissued?
$6700 for a rifle including future repairs and parts?????? Hell, buy them a $1000 rifle and if it breaks buy them another $1000 rifle, 5 more times! LOL

There is no way to rationalize $6700 for a hunting rifle like you or I would buy EXCEPT for all the built in bureaucracy and pocket-lining involved in military/government procurement. Would any of us pay $6700 for a TIKKA if they threw in free repairs for 20 years?? No.

For comparison purposes, the RCMP are getting their C8 Patrol Carbine for $2800 each. Come on.....
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-26-2015, 03:43 PM
J0HN_R1 J0HN_R1 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 2,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colroggal View Post

I wonder what happened to the ruger prototype? I saw pix somewhere of an m77 with a red composite stock, 20 inch med contour barrel and what looked like the accuracy int. Mag off the gunsite scout.

Colin
It was basically a Gunsite Scout... Ruger wouldn't sell the rights to Colt, no more Ruger NCRR...

DND procurement agent - "anybody got Sako's number ?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimPS View Post

The procurement cost is way too steep...
http://www.casr.ca/doc-pa-ranger-rifle.htm

Even the highest estimate ($49mil) puts 10,200 rifles (200 for testing) at $4804 each. The lowest ($20mil), a paltry $1960...

And even if you factor in the initial $1.5mil deposit, that's still only $4950 ea.

If that includes the soft & hard cases (Pelicans are not cheap), spare parts, AND factory-spec servicing over 10-15yrs... Well $5000 is not that bad of a deal.

Given that its a Gov't procurement, it could've been a lot worse...


* More importanly, ARE THERE ANY LEFT-HAND MODELS BEING MADE...? LoL
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-26-2015, 04:16 PM
Matt L.'s Avatar
Matt L. Matt L. is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Whitecourt
Posts: 5,818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheus32 View Post
This is the internet after all. Everyone gets an opinion....
True enough.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-26-2015, 10:58 PM
sikwhiskey sikwhiskey is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 2,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheus32 View Post
Normally does not work that way. The costs of production, spare parts and tech specs are for the entire run of the rifles to include the provision of the "kit" as shown in the pictures. As the military will own the "specs", Colt or anyone else can not produce it without the military's permission.
I understand that, colt did do a run of SA-15.7 IUR that are available to the public, same or damn near upper as used in military. I also understand they are under license from Sako in this build. So will the military own the specs as it is NR factory tikka produced by colt? That explains the $6700, BS, complete an utterly.
The word Normal has no business even being used with government, retardation would be a better word.
__________________
"Unthinking respect for Authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-26-2015, 11:02 PM
sikwhiskey sikwhiskey is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 2,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sikwhiskey View Post
I understand that, colt did do a run of SA-15.7 IUR that are available to the public, same or damn near upper as used in military. I also understand they are under license from Sako in this build. So will the military own the specs as it is NR factory tikka produced by colt? That explains the $6700, BS, complete an utterly.
The word Normal has no business even being used with government, retardation would be a better word.
Correct that, RETARDNATION fits the bill.
__________________
"Unthinking respect for Authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-27-2015, 12:04 AM
sikwhiskey sikwhiskey is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 2,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L. View Post
Really boggles my mind how many people here refuse to listen to those who know what's going on. What makes some of you guys think you know better than the military (who are kinda in that line of work) on how to procure arms?
The Rangers have made do with $50 lee enfields for the last how many years ? Now they upgrade to a $6700 rifle. Don't get me wrong, give them what they want and I absolutely thank and respect them for doing what they do, however, Govt needs to pull head out of ass
__________________
"Unthinking respect for Authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-27-2015, 12:10 AM
sikwhiskey sikwhiskey is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lethbridge
Posts: 2,045
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish_e_o View Post
well they were using the same enfields since ww1 so if these last half as long it's money well spent.

as far as cost goes i doubt $100 sights a $100 larger bolt knob a $100 trigger guard and a $150 stock turn a $1700 rifle into a $6000 rifle
Govt contracts lol. Just multiply the number the average joe pays by 4, all good bro. Now how to convince the military they should only drink the water I produce........ I would even service it, and refrigerate it for a life time.
__________________
"Unthinking respect for Authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 06-27-2015, 04:36 PM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

A bunch of you seem fixated on the contract cost. The individual rifle is not worth $6700 replacement cost, the system over 30 years is what the cost is. Let's do a comparison, DND is buying a rifle that is to last 30 years with everyday use. So exchange rifle for a truck, DND is pre buying the parts and maintenance on the truck for 30 years. It is also buying a complete rebuild of the truck around the 15 year point so you get another new truck in essence. Plus spares so the systems don't have shortages during rebuild and regular maintenance. This allows the truck to remain in service for 30 years and meet the needs of DND.

So the purchase is not for a single rifle but rather the rifle and the means to maintain the rifle in service for the next 30 years including a rebuild and spares.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 06-27-2015, 07:57 PM
marxman's Avatar
marxman marxman is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheus32 View Post
A bunch of you seem fixated on the contract cost. The individual rifle is not worth $6700 replacement cost, the system over 30 years is what the cost is. Let's do a comparison, DND is buying a rifle that is to last 30 years with everyday use. So exchange rifle for a truck, DND is pre buying the parts and maintenance on the truck for 30 years. It is also buying a complete rebuild of the truck around the 15 year point so you get another new truck in essence. Plus spares so the systems don't have shortages during rebuild and regular maintenance. This allows the truck to remain in service for 30 years and meet the needs of DND.

So the purchase is not for a single rifle but rather the rifle and the means to maintain the rifle in service for the next 30 years including a rebuild and spares.
yes but its 2015 you can get a good gun like the t3 not expensive and when its worn get a new one their procurement is like 100 years old. are you saying the guns are under warranty 30 years i find that hard to believe that colt is going to be saddled with maintaining these guns for 30 years for an up front price
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 06-27-2015, 10:24 PM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marxman View Post
yes but its 2015 you can get a good gun like the t3 not expensive and when its worn get a new one their procurement is like 100 years old. are you saying the guns are under warranty 30 years i find that hard to believe that colt is going to be saddled with maintaining these guns for 30 years for an up front price
Warranty is not the right word however they are part of the depot level repair program with the military weapons tech providing armoury repair. Certain types of repair and rebuild are done at Colt Canada when it is beyond what the weapons techs can do. They will also do the rebuilds. Colt Canada is currently doing this for all of our small arms less the browning HP. We just upgraded our rifles as an extension of the contract. In the past our service rifles went in for rebuild around 15 years.

So yes, it is part of the contract to support the maintenance of the rifles. Does that make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 06-27-2015, 10:40 PM
Unregistered user Unregistered user is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheus32 View Post
A bunch of you seem fixated on the contract cost. The individual rifle is not worth $6700 replacement cost, the system over 30 years is what the cost is. Let's do a comparison, DND is buying a rifle that is to last 30 years with everyday use. So exchange rifle for a truck, DND is pre buying the parts and maintenance on the truck for 30 years. It is also buying a complete rebuild of the truck around the 15 year point so you get another new truck in essence. Plus spares so the systems don't have shortages during rebuild and regular maintenance. This allows the truck to remain in service for 30 years and meet the needs of DND.

So the purchase is not for a single rifle but rather the rifle and the means to maintain the rifle in service for the next 30 years including a rebuild and spares.
Therein lies the problem, antiquated thinking. Fleet purchases try the very best to minimize maintenance costs and that means sell them off before the repairs kill you. From cars to trucks to D10 Cats you don't flog a dead horse. Motivate a ranger to keep his kit in good working order and let him keep it after 2 or 3 years, then buy him a new one. These guys are growing up shooting guns whilst city kids are jonesing for playdates. As Homer said, "A gun is not a weapon Marge, it's a tool like a butcher's knife or a harpoon or an alligator. Seriously though, what happened to all the old C1A1s that were taken out of service and never sold back to us lowly tax-payers? If we still have them, use them and run 'em. When they're too expensive to fix, sell them to collectors, we all win. It's just a friggin' gun.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 06-28-2015, 09:43 AM
catnthehat's Avatar
catnthehat catnthehat is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ft. McMurray
Posts: 38,526
Default

A C1a1?
You couldn't give me one if those for daily use!!
I've carried one and had a cousin who hinted with a civilian model - PIS for a hunting rifle.
Thus new rifle was developed for the Rangers by the Rangers and from what I have learned from them, they are quite happy about it.
What WE think is of no consequence , really .
Cat
__________________
Anytime I figure I've got this long range thing figured out, I just strap into the sling and irons and remind myself that I don't!
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 06-28-2015, 09:58 AM
Unregistered user Unregistered user is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,140
Default

True enuff, but I liked my old FN, heavy ol' gal but very accurate given that it was made in 1957 and shot well in 81, 82. I liked it so much that I wanted to buy a civvy model but at close to $1000 at "Toys for big boys" it was way too much green back then. I sure hope the gun they select works well for them.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 06-28-2015, 10:11 AM
Dick284's Avatar
Dick284 Dick284 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,585
Default

-The Rangers didn't want a semi!
-The spec was chosen by the Rangers themselves.
-Made in Canada under licence because thats how military procurement happens, creating reliable supply lines regardless of international circumstances.
-Odd coluration of the stock performs two purposes, keeps indavertant lose to a minimum, and makes blackmarket sales distinguishable.
- As for the cost...thats like peeing in the ocean compared to other blunderous initiatives the Feds have attempted, and shelved/screwed up/or otherwise mis managed.

I know this likely hurts the sentimants of the arm chair defence ministers, or wannabe field marshals, but the realities are, what they are.

The rangers have no combat tasking, they are at best trainers and guides if Arctic combat ever were to happened, Right now they serve as a method of bolstering Canadian sovereignty, without having an inflated cost of actual bases, personel and equiptment being there.
__________________


There are no absolutes
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 06-28-2015, 10:12 AM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered user View Post
True enuff, but I liked my old FN, heavy ol' gal but very accurate given that it was made in 1957 and shot well in 81, 82. I liked it so much that I wanted to buy a civvy model but at close to $1000 at "Toys for big boys" it was way too much green back then. I sure hope the gun they select works well for them.
I too used the FN and have done 5 overseas tours with the C7/C8 series. I prefer the current rifle over the FN for a bunch of reasons. The FN had its day but it has passed.

I got it that you think that the FNs should have been sold to the public. Current policy in the government says not going to happen. We can continue to dream. It is actually irrelevant as the entire C1, C2 and C5 stockpile were destroyed and replaced with C7/C8s as an operational reserve.

Weapons just like every piece of equipment need to be life cycle managed, otherwise they become incredibly expensive in the long run and tap capital funds that are needed for other projects and upgrades. There is only one pool of money for capital and it is important it is managed. It is not just a rifle, it is a system with the expectation of lasting 30 years....
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 06-28-2015, 10:51 AM
calgarychef calgarychef is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,667
Default New guns

Well I find it a bit strange that "parts for the lee Enfield are getting hard to find" there's tons of them around. I'm all for getting new rifles though. I wonder if these new rifles will still be used in 50 or 75 years like the old ones were and how long parts will be available for the new ones.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 06-28-2015, 10:54 AM
Dick284's Avatar
Dick284 Dick284 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarychef View Post
Well I find it a bit strange that "parts for the lee Enfield are getting hard to find" there's tons of them around. I'm all for getting new rifles though. I wonder if these new rifles will still be used in 50 or 75 years like the old ones were and how long parts will be available for the new ones.
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.......
__________________


There are no absolutes

Last edited by Dick284; 06-28-2015 at 11:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 06-28-2015, 03:24 PM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick284 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 06-28-2015, 03:57 PM
Unregistered user Unregistered user is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,140
Default

Are the Rangers issued ball only?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 06-28-2015, 04:17 PM
Dick284's Avatar
Dick284 Dick284 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered user View Post
Are the Rangers issued ball only?
Both ball and soft point I believe.
I remember seeing black market, IVI brown box .303 180gr SP ammo floating around from time to time.
__________________


There are no absolutes
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 06-28-2015, 05:03 PM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered user View Post
Are the Rangers issued ball only?
As the rifles are not being used against people, they don't have the same rules to follow on the natures they can use. They do use ball for the rifle matches they participate in annually but it is normally soft points.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 06-29-2015, 09:16 AM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick284 View Post
-
- As for the cost...thats like peeing in the ocean compared to other blunderous initiatives the Feds have attempted, and shelved/screwed up/or otherwise mis managed.

.
I think that's what the Senators said about their expense account charges. That's about the biggest pile of BS for justification. And a secure supply line???? LOL They should have bought a gun from our biggest and safest ally next door if that was a real concern, instead of a country not even in NATO. You're grasping at straws here Dick. If you want to ensure availability of parts, modifications, etc, you buy a Remington 700. Simply no excuse for a $6500 HUNTING RIFLE. If
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 06-29-2015, 09:32 AM
fish_e_o fish_e_o is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: rollyview
Posts: 7,860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
Simply no excuse for a $6500 HUNTING RIFLE.
it just depends what rifle that is there are a lot of rofles i'd spend $6500 on and be happier than a pig in it

if it comes out to $4900 like was said above and that includes a 20 year no condition warranty that's a great deal for a rifle used in some of the harshest conditions!

a rifle used in that manner for that long will probably see a few barrels at least. at $1000 a pop it really puts the price right where it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 06-29-2015, 10:23 AM
Morpheus32 Morpheus32 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish_e_o View Post
it just depends what rifle that is there are a lot of rofles i'd spend $6500 on and be happier than a pig in it

if it comes out to $4900 like was said above and that includes a 20 year no condition warranty that's a great deal for a rifle used in some of the harshest conditions!

a rifle used in that manner for that long will probably see a few barrels at least. at $1000 a pop it really puts the price right where it should be.
Thank you. I am feeling like a bit of a broken record trying to explain how we maintain weapons in the military. I guess some people just can't take in the concepts we are doing here. I think it would be more of a insult to the Canadian tax payer if we did not have a life cycle plan and viewed them as disposable. The cost would be well over $6500 if we replaced them every time they got damaged.

Having parts, and a repair process is critical to keeping the rifle in service for 30 years.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 06-29-2015, 02:41 PM
Huntnut's Avatar
Huntnut Huntnut is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Beaverlodge
Posts: 1,764
Default

Some people just see that 6500 price tag and it's like they have blinders on-can't see past that number.
__________________
Hunting isn't a matter of life and death......it's more important than that
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 06-29-2015, 02:47 PM
marxman's Avatar
marxman marxman is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,844
Default

I feel like a broken record too maybe the military should change if they can inflate a simple purchase like this what are they doing with big items. I would cost much more to maintain it for thirty years than to replace it every ten and what about the ones that fall overboard or get lost or wrecked
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 06-29-2015, 04:14 PM
marxman's Avatar
marxman marxman is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,844
Default

if i understand it correctly the govt has also bought the right to pay them to maintain them is that right? what a deal
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.