Lee Enfield Mark 1 No. 4

[Bergeron 971]

So what do you guys see this rifle as?
Should it be reimplimented into the army cadet system at the LHQ level?
thoughts, comments, why or why not?
lets see where this goes.

 

[time expired]

Had one just like it in basic 1958,great wpn. to learn "musketry", if the little buggers can learn to
handle that they will have no problems with anything thrown at them latter.
                                            Regards

 

[Bergeron 971]

good post time.

 

[THEARMYGUY]

Honestly I don't see the problem with the current LHQ #7 rifles.  Do you see any advantages to this version of the Lee Enfield?  I'm at a bit of a loss.  I was a cadet in the FN C1A1 days.  We fired them full bore in Petawawa every winter.  Those days are gone and now I just keep rolling with the new waves as they emerge.  The program changes for the good of all involved.  At least that's the plan!

Cheers!!!   

the army guy    :warstory:

 

[3rd Herd]

Well the Canadian Rangers still use it so they are still somewhat in the system as new old stock. But as for use as a cadet rifle many Corps have a hard enough time securing range time for the .22s let alone a big bore rifle. Also, the availability of a range in close proximity to Corps which allow for "big bore". Next, there is the difference in body size, arm length and strength issues. I had cadets shoot regularly with the FNC1 and while it was "fun" most of the principals of marksman ship went by the wayside. You learn and develop marksmanship skills through constant practice not shooting the biggest gun on the block. The air rifle and the .22 which are in the system have a less round per cost than the .303. Something that has to be considered in this era of financial responsibility. Lastly, you need range staff who are qualified for "big bore". In the various Corps I have worked with (all three services) there were/are very few of us. Again cost involved to train up new staff, both dollar and time wise. The only advantage the ole .303 in relationship to cadets is in drill. At least it is real and not made of rubber. In closing there is also something to do with various international conventions on "Child Soldiers" which Canada is a signatory and if memory serves me correct was one of the causes for the removal of big bore shooting.

 

[Bergeron 971]

sorry guys, didn't mean to generally use only the 303. i meant the lee en field in general, let it be .22 or .303

I personally think that the air rifles made some slack off on safety measures. I was in when we learned the lee enfields, and the air rifles where starting to make their mark in the movement. having both was good. we got to touch, disassemble and reassemble the rifle. learn to clean and handle with the lee enfield, and shot with the air rifle most of the year, we would only shoot once a year with the .303 or .22..

It gave me for one a sense of heritage. Which makes me to this day, eager to purchase a unit some day.

 

[THEARMYGUY]

The air rifle came into the program as I was leaving Cadet World.  The Lee was the rifle our unit used for marksmanship and rifle training.  We only had the chance to use the FN's during Large Bore Shoot on a base.  The Lee does lend itself to the program as a not for firing "real" rifle for drill purposes.  We have some at our unit and they are very well thought of by our unit cadets.  Everyone wants a bigger better gun at some point.  The reality of the CCM is that the CATO's will dictate what we get and when.  D CDT's is the ultimate authority on the program period.  We are constantly in a flux. 

3rd Herd, you make a good point about the child soldier agreement.  I must agree.  Good points all.

Cheers.   

the army guy  :warstory:

 

[Franko]

The biggest reason for the move to shooting the pellet rifle is cost....period.

You can not only shoot in an area that doesn't have to be inspected and cleaned up and certified year to year, unlike a regular range (It's called lead poisoning) but you don't have to book a range at all.

Just an area that is at least 30m in length, and most LHQ night drill halls fit the bill.

Pellets are cheap comparative to bullets.

You do not require as many stringent rules when dealing with pellet rifles, however the cadet CATOs require it (preventative measures)

You do not require a weapons vault like other firearms. You can get them out at anytime, try doing that with No 4 or No 7s never mind C7s.

When you get right down to the nitty gritty....marksmanship techniques are the same for either a real weapon or a pellet rifle.

Then we get into the whole "child soldier" agreement....but that's another thread entirely.

I've been through all the changes from 83 to today.....it all boils down to money.

Regards

 

[primer]

That's all it was. NO MONEY for Ammo. Hence we lost the weapon. Our lost CDN Rangers gain at least they will use the rifle not like that cadet system sitting in a vault most of the time 

 

[Northern Ranger]

The Ranger Group I am in was requested to put together a service paper on the replacement for the 303.  Although we have pushed this stuff forward in the past, this time it was requested.  Rangers Like the 303, as it does have stopping power and they still get the yearly ammo allotment given to them.

 

[rz350]

Its a great rifle (I own one of my own that I absolutely LOVE to shoot. its such a smooth, accurate, fun gun to use, IMHO) however, the report and recoil may make it somewhat less then pleasant (and safe) for a 12 year old to use. I think it would be a good weapon to do drill with, and also, a good weapon for the older cadets to do marksmanship with. (Say 15/16 year old and up) But I see the air rifle has a good place, as shooting in a drill hall makes marksmanship much easier and more accessible then having to book a range and and a bus and get all the cadets there.

The air rifle should maintain its bread and butter usage, with the .303 as a "bonus" weapon for the older cadets to use from time to time, to improve their long range skills, which are a valid and challenging part of marksmanship.

 

[gunner56]

At my Corps(1292 LdSH(RC)RCACC) we use N0.7's for marksmanship& Dewat No.4.s for Guard &Flag Party. The Cadets love both and they really look sharp on parade.We also fix bayonets(Spike type) with Flag Pty.

 

[geo]

Well the Canadian Rangers still use it so they are still somewhat in the system as new old stock. But as for use as a cadet rifle many Corps have a hard enough time securing range time for the .22s let alone a big bore rifle. Also, the availability of a range in close proximity to Corps which allow for "big bore". Next, there is the difference in body size, arm length and strength issues. I had cadets shoot regularly with the FNC1 and while it was "fun" most of the principals of marksman ship went by the wayside. You learn and develop marksmanship skills through constant practice not shooting the biggest gun on the block. The air rifle and the .22 which are in the system have a less round per cost than the .303. Something that has to be considered in this era of financial responsibility. Lastly, you need range staff who are qualified for "big bore". In the various Corps I have worked with (all three services) there were/are very few of us. Again cost involved to train up new staff, both dollar and time wise. The only advantage the ole .303 in relationship to cadets is in drill. At least it is real and not made of rubber. In closing there is also something to do with various international conventions on "Child Soldiers" which Canada is a signatory and if memory serves me correct was one of the causes for the removal of big bore shooting.

WRT the Rangers.  From one of my old Sgts, the rangers are looking for a new rifle.  Would appear that 303 imperial is not as readily available up north. 

No decision so far