Colt C-19 for Canadian Arctic Rangers

Mentioned somewhere wa the fact they had to ship the guns out for repairs
and they were out of service tool long. Also there was some embarrassment on still using WWI rifles. I think the ability to mount a scope is huge. It was also a huge boost to the Ranger’s moral.
 
They were having troubles getting parts for the Lee Enfield. 303 will drop a polar bear. So will a 308. I carried a 300 Win Mag when I was flying in polar bear country.

IMG_0153.jpeg
 
At short ranges where most polar or grizzly bear defense shootings are going to take place, the .308 and .303 are going to get the job done the vast majority of the time. Both the .303 and .308 send a 180gr bullet around 2500 fps, give or take. This velocity level, with many bullet types, can give deeper penetration than a magnum cartridge as you tend to get less bullet expansion and fragmentation.

Long range is where the real advantage of the magnum cartridges are. A .300 Win Mag hits about as hard at 200 yards as a .308 does at point blank range.
 
Most professional hunters (aka guides in the States) would prefer to see a client show up with a well used '06 or .308 that they can shoot well than a brand new whizz boom ultra magnum that they can't shoot without flinching.

The older I get the more I like the moderate recoiling old standards. I know my limits as a shooter and I'm never going to be taking 400+ yard shots on game.
 
ripcord said:
Most professional hunters (aka guides in the States) would prefer to see a client show up with a well used '06 or .308 that they can shoot well than a brand new whizz boom ultra magnum that they can't shoot without flinching.

The older I get the more I like the moderate recoiling old standards. I know my limits as a shooter and I'm never going to be taking 400+ yard shots on game.
Click to expand...
The action matters as well.

My M1 Garands have relatively modest recoil. So does my M-1A. But those same cartridges in a bolt gun have substantially more perceived recoil. I like this rifle, I do, but I suspect it has a lot more perceived recoil than an M-1A.

I get the bolt gun imperative for reliability in incredible cold, and it’s far more likely to be carried for years, and not used, so a gas gun has no advantages. As I reconsider, this rifle is a good choice for the mission.
 
I'm curious how the Canadian Rangers operate and what their mission looks like?

I imagine there are a lot of snowmobile trips between small, remote villages and such. A cross between park ranger, mountie and social worker?
 
Astro14 said:
The action matters as well.

My M1 Garands have relatively modest recoil. So does my M-1A. But those same cartridges in a bolt gun have substantially more perceived recoil. I like this rifle, I do, but I suspect it has a lot more perceived recoil than an M-1A...
Click to expand...
I have shot the M-1A on one occasion and agree the recoil is not at all bad. I have not fired the C-19, but a friend had a Remington 600 Wigwam (a similar lightweight bolt action carbine) in .308 that I had a chance to shoot on numerous occasions. Recoil was very light to the point that I could keep the scope on target after taking a shot. I can't come close to doing that with my Browning BAR in 30-06 and I think target reacquisition time makes a follow up shot take even longer with that semi auto 30-06 than the bolt .308.
I don't know if this is the case with the Canadian C-19 though. I think I need one to find out.
 
weaponoffreedom said:
I do not see that their new gun is better than their old gun. Waste of time.
Click to expand...
Everyone has there opinion but mine is far from this.
While on paper they have similar specs. The reality is the Tikka T3 is a far superior rifle in almost every way. The exception being sight radius but with the ability to easily mount a optic this will have the Tikka come out on top for most users.

Contrary to whats been posted parts and armourer logistics are MAJOR factors in why these rifles are being replaced along with the fact their old rifles where very clapped out.

As someone that has owned half a dozen of both T3 and LE's I can say without a doubt the new rifles are a big upgrade and one that was well needed.
 
JWC86 said:
Everyone has there opinion but mine is far from this.
While on paper they have similar specs. The reality is the Tikka T3 is a far superior rifle in almost every way. The exception being sight radius but with the ability to easily mount a optic this will have the Tikka come out on top for most users.

Contrary to whats been posted parts and armourer logistics are MAJOR factors in why these rifles are being replaced along with the fact their old rifles where very clapped out.

As someone that has owned half a dozen of both T3 and LE's I can say without a doubt the new rifles are a big upgrade and one that was well needed.
Click to expand...
Yes, the ability to mount an optic is a huge plus and reason enough to upgrade right there. I've owned several .308's, currently have a 700 5R Milspec, and with a scope they are a very balanced combo.
 
OVERKILL said:
Yes, the ability to mount an optic is a huge plus and reason enough to upgrade right there. I've owned several .308's, currently have a 700 5R Milspec, and with a scope they are a very balanced combo.
Click to expand...
The 5R is a great rifle, the C-19 has a light stock and barrel so would be a even handier(lighter and still well balanced)

If I had more time I would like to go through every component of the C19 and old Lee Enfeilds. I feel that every component is a upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top