While they were compensated, it doesn't mean that RA translates directly with receive damage modifiers. Even against small arm fire.
It's like the whole change with IS damage from 16 to 14.
The Lee Enfield change from 16 to 14 damage was significant because it actually increased the time to kill, for the rifle itself and also in conjunction with the Bren and the Sten. The damage reduction into lower RA change doesn't, or barely. The most common weapons, 16, 14, 12 and 4 damage ones, have the same BTK (Bullets To Kill) against 0.73RA Rangers (110 effective HP) as they did against 0.8RA/0.9DR Rangers (111 effective HP). There are very few weapons that actually have a lower BTK now, with 10 damage Panzerfusilier Kar 98K and 5 damage PGren STG 44 are the only ones I can think of (and to be honest the STG 44 needing 22 instead of 23 bullets is hardly noticeable).
The only real change is that damage reduction is a bit more reliable than received accuracy, so Rangers will now take a bit more damage if the enemy gets some good accuracy rolls compared to before, and they are probably a bit more vulnerable to high accuracy weapons like the Obers Kar 98K (that are likely to hit regardless of target size), but I think that difference is negligible.
There may be some rare instances where the damage of AOE adds up with small arms damage quite perfectly and kills a model that would've otherwise survived one more shot with the damage reduction, but I think that's also insignificant enough to dismiss. I'm aware that the RA technically didn't absolutely fully compensate the DR, but I believe the difference is so small that for arguments' sake we can quite safely assume there is basically no difference. In the vast majority of cases, Rangers did not lose durability against small arms fire. Unless of course tests prove that the difference actually is significant enough, in which case I'd be happy to look into further compensation.