CTV News-100 years ago, Ross rifle failed Canadian First World War Soldiers

[5THBATT]

If the Ross Rifle had been issued in the Boer War I guarantee you that it would have been held in extremely high regard due to its long range accuracy.

At the time that was how they expected warfare to be fought, long range battles with platoons of men (look at the Volley Sights and the graduations on the sights of some of the rifles of the time). The British even thought the Lee Enfield was junk and were planning on replacing it with a modified Mauser design, the P13 (as a result of the Lee Enfield during the Boer War).

Basically is the Ross rifle a good rifle for the trenches? No it isn't. Is there times when it would be exceptional to have? Definitely.

You need to understand the use of the vollysight & research the reason behind some of the short comings of the Lee Enfield during the Boer war before making such broad statements, you also forget to mention the reason why they abandoned the mauser type action after WW1.
Sure, the Ross might have been a better rifle to have during the Boer war & any lessons learned during the war would have made the Ross a better "battle rifle" for WW1 but even then i dont believe it would have performed as well in the trenches as the Lee Enfield.

 

[drm3m]

Stephen J. Nichol wrote a great book--Ordinary Heros--Eastern Ontario's 21st Battalion C.E.F. in The Great War.

The stuff below came from this book.
At one point I asked Steve if the rifles show in the photo of the snipers were Ross rifles.

His answer;

The rifles I believe, are Ross's. They were equipped with Warner & Swasey scopes. There is one of these scopes mounted on Johnson Paudash's rifle (on the extreme right).



Some of the commentary concerning Johnson Paudash.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You need to understand the use of the vollysight & research the reason behind some of the short comings of the Lee Enfield during the Boer war before making such broad statements, you also forget to mention the reason why they abandoned the mauser type action after WW1.
Sure, the Ross might have been a better rifle to have during the Boer war & any lessons learned during the war would have made the Ross a better "battle rifle" for WW1 but even then i dont believe it would have performed as well in the trenches as the Lee Enfield.

I am not arguing that the Ross is a better battle rifle then the Lee Enfield. What I am trying to say is it had been tailored towards a different type of combat (long range battlefields where accuracy is everything) then trench warfare due to the mindset of the time (WWI was a steep learning curve for everyone). I don't think the Mk. 3 Ross design could be truly effective in the type of conditions required for trench warfare just due to the intricacy of the design. However there are battlefields where the design would shine.

 

[RRCo.]

I am not arguing that the Ross is a better battle rifle then the Lee Enfield. What I am trying to say is it had been tailored towards a different type of combat (long range battlefields where accuracy is everything) then trench warfare due to the mindset of the time (WWI was a steep learning curve for everyone). I don't think the Mk. 3 Ross design could be truly effective in the type of conditions required for trench warfare just due to the intricacy of the design. However there are battlefields where the design would shine.

The complexity issue is pretty much a non-starter IMO, except insofar as the mag is concerned, though the SMLE is easier to clean in some respects such as the bolt which is also easier to remove and replace. Overall I'd say a Ross MkIII with a barrel of SMLE length and a nose cap adapted to the 1907 SMLE bayonet would have been very comparable as a combat rifle. With it's much heavier barrel it was not only much more accurate but more suitable for prolonged firing. The Ross had better sights by far, but the balance and heft was definitely inferior to the SMLE.

Quick summation...

Ross Defects:

Non-detachable 5 shot magazine vulnerable to denting vs. the ribbed, detachable 10 round magazine of the SMLE.
Barrel too long.
Bayonet too short and inferior to Patt. 1907 for thrusting and intimidation(!)
Stock wrist too thick.
Buttplate steel, not brass (prone to rust)
Barrel not fully enclosed by upper handguard (ingress of dirt and moisture under the barrel and potential for burns to the hand from heated barrel)
One piece stock harder to adapt to soldiers length of pull; butt cannot be changed separately (also less convenient for maintenance).
Cannot be manually re-cocked without opening bolt.
No provision for half-####.
Safety cannot be operated without removing hand from stock.


SMLE Defects:

Open sights inferior to aperture sights
Barrel too light for best accuracy or sustained fire, vulnerable to distortion of forend affecting accuracy.
Trigger mounted on guard vulnerable to distortion of forend affecting function and harder to manufacture and maintain.
Stock & handguards more complex and expensive to manufacture and fit.

It's funny how many reported complaints there were about the the length of the Ross and how you couldn't get down into dugouts with it slung, hitting the bracing over trenches etc and yet from the photos it looks like a lot of men kept their bayonets on their SMLEs almost permanently in the trenches, making them almost as long as the Ross had been with its shorter bayonet fitted. Simply psychology!

 

[Tinman204]

I agree about the whole length issue.

The Gew88, steyr m95, m91 carcano and 91 mosin are all super long. The Importance in those days was accuracy at longer ranges. Trench warfare changed all of that and that's where the smle really shined.

The funny thing is though the smle is the product of about 20 years of updates and refinements that started with the lee metford. If the Ross had 20 years to iron out the kinks how much better could it have been?

 

[RRCo.]

I agree about the whole length issue.

The Gew88, steyr m95, m91 carcano and 91 mosin are all super long. The Importance in those days was accuracy at longer ranges. Trench warfare changed all of that and that's where the smle really shined.

The funny thing is though the smle is the product of about 20 years of updates and refinements that started with the lee metford. If the Ross had 20 years to iron out the kinks how much better could it have been?

Very true, and the SMLE was not popular with a lot of marksmen and soldiers; it was felt to be a poor compromise between a rifle and a carbine. The light barrels were particularly unpopular. Ironic that the Australian "H" barrels for the SMLE had the same profile as the old M.L.E. and C.L.L.E. barrels!

Of course the SMLE was officially regarded as as stop-gap until a 'proper' rifle could be produced: the still-born P13. Funny how they said the same thing about the No4 and self-loading rifles: "we won't need this for long, so a stop-gap will do"!

As most of us know, the British tried to copy the .280 Ross round in the .276 P13 Enfield, without success. Ross hoped that cartridge and his MkIII rifle would become the "Empire standard". Interesting how ready the experts in the UK were to give up the 10 round magazine of the SMLE and replace it with the five round magazine of the P13. The Ross MkIII was nothing more than an adaption of his military pattern .280 rifle to .303 cartridge instead, just as the Patt.13 was adapted to .303 becoming the Patt.14, and the Garand was adapted to .30-06...and so on and so on!