Best Bolt Action Milsurp

diopter said:
That argument has as many holes as Swiss Cheese.
Click to expand...

I agree with Green- intensive use in combat is the ultimate test of these machines. Even many of the rifle types we regard very highly were shown to be less than perfect under severe conditions. Without a history of combat use, the Swiss rifles shouldn't be elevated to the same status as the ones that were there and proved themselves (or failed to do so).

milsurpo
 
What are the supposed defects?
Beside ALL rifles of that era, from 1890's to late 1940 are obsolete by today's military standards, except in certain roles by someone who actually knows how to hit a distant target.
 
diopter said:
What are the supposed defects?
Beside ALL rifles of that era, from 1890's to late 1940 are obsolete by today's military standards, except in certain roles by someone who actually knows how to hit a distant target.
Click to expand...

again please list the holes.
 
diopter said:
That argument has as many holes as Swiss Cheese.
Click to expand...

I think it's very fair to point out that the Swiss straight-pull rifles were never battle tested, because they weren't. The truth is nobody knows how they would have held up to trench warfare or the Blitzkrieg.

Would the mechanisms have worked well in the mud, or under the pressures of wartime ammunition with looser specifications? Would they have held up well to repeated rapid fire in the cold? Would the forestocks have been prone to cracking in real bayonet fighting? Would those waxed carton chargers have been a good idea in the mud and rain?

We simply don't know, and it's not heresy to state this fact.

As someone pointed out, the Ross MkIII was widely regarded by many as the most accurate and reliable military rifle of its day prior to WW1. It held most of the bisley records and was loved by Canadian troops... that is, until it ran into poorly made british ammo in the mud of flanders. The rest was history.

The Schmidt-Rubin rifles have not been similarly tested.
 
Claven2 said:
... and was loved by Canadian troops... that is, until it ran into poorly made british ammo in the mud of flanders. The rest was history.
Click to expand...
"Loved?"...that's pushing it a bit.

Canadian troops were complaining about the excessive weight and length of the ungainly Ross long before the problems with ammo emerged.
 
Last edited:
My biceps also vividly remember the c1a1, especially on those little "walks " we used to take from Camp Borden to Alliston and back lol.
 
Claven2 said:
I think it's very fair to point out that the Swiss straight-pull rifles were never battle tested, because they weren't. The truth is nobody knows how they would have held up to trench warfare or the Blitzkrieg.

Would the mechanisms have worked well in the mud, or under the pressures of wartime ammunition with looser specifications? Would they have held up well to repeated rapid fire in the cold? Would the forestocks have been prone to cracking in real bayonet fighting? Would those waxed carton chargers have been a good idea in the mud and rain?

We simply don't know, and it's not heresy to state this fact.

As someone pointed out, the Ross MkIII was widely regarded by many as the most accurate and reliable military rifle of its day prior to WW1. It held most of the bisley records and was loved by Canadian troops... that is, until it ran into poorly made british ammo in the mud of flanders. The rest was history.

The Schmidt-Rubin rifles have not been similarly tested.
Click to expand...
All straight pulls suffer from poor camming power and low primary extraction, 2 things desperately needed in a combat rifle

British ammo really got a bad rap...but when your "battle rifle" has an undersize "match" chamber and your heat treatment is poor, bad things happen.

In reality the m.1910/MkIII Ross has a whole cascade of issues that made it a very poor combat weapon.

-Bolt heat treatment.
-Undersize bolt stop (impacting the edge of the bolt head segment and deforming it).
-A lack of bolt support in the action (the bolt dolphins if it isn't operated in a straight line).-this is common to the whole series of Ross rifles-
-Minimum spec chamber (reportedly to squeeze extra velocity out of the cartridge).
-Easily damaged narrow magazine walls which resulted in jammed magazines.
-Over length too long (again to squeeze a few extra feet per second of velocity).


Having said that, when their bolts are undamaged or deformed, man are they smooth.

They are a gun that showed so much potential, but as a sporting rifle not as a combat weapon.
 
Last edited:
The Ross gives stright pulls a bad reputation as combat rifles, but the M95 did quite well during the war, it proved to be an excellent weapon.
 
Hear! Hear!
M95 served great in two World Wars, I suspect nobody told those Mannlichers they lack something. While I can understand that in theory one can find both disadvantages and advantages for any kind of bolt system, in practice it's all about implementation. And M95 was very good rifle.
 
BOHROK said:
The Ross gives stright pulls a bad reputation as combat rifles, but the M95 did quite well during the war, it proved to be an excellent weapon.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%.

Funny thing is the mk2 Ross is damn near identical to the m95 action. I often pull both out and compare them to remind me just how much Ross borrowed from the Mannlicher design.

I find the m95s are as over built as they come. Strong and durable, the only design flaw I find is the pencil thin barrel that heats very quickly.

Since I'm a straight pull collecter I agree that the lack of primary extraction is the weak link in ALL straight pulls.

And since everyone is talking swiss guns, I like 1889 and the 1911 better then the k31. The k31 is more accurate and is a very nice gun but I find the swuss designs get more clunky in every newer model. I also find k31 bolts VERY clunky if i shoot my k31 after my Ross mk3. ;)
 
Last edited:
Lee Enfield said:
All straight pulls suffer from poor camming power and low primary extraction, 2 things desperately needed in a combat rifle

British ammo really got a bad rap...but when your "battle rifle" has an undersize "match" chamber and your heat treatment is poor, bad things happen.

In reality the m.1910/MkIII Ross has a whole cascade of issues that made it a very poor combat weapon.

-Bolt heat treatment.
-Undersize bolt stop (impacting the edge of the bolt head segment and deforming it).
-A lack of bolt support in the action (the bolt dolphins if it isn't operated in a straight line).-this is common to the whole series of Ross rifles-
-Minimum spec chamber (reportedly to squeeze extra velocity out of the cartridge).
-Easily damaged narrow magazine walls which resulted in jammed magazines.
-Over length too long (again to squeeze a few extra feet per second of velocity).


Having said that, when their bolts are undamaged or deformed, man are they smooth.

They are a gun that showed so much potential, but as a sporting rifle not as a combat weapon.
Click to expand...

First I have heard of bolt heat treat issues.

The Ross chambers were cut with exact copies of the Leeds pattern .303 reamer. They were not undersized. When the Ross chambers were opened up, it was because Ross receivers were so hard and meaty that the chambers weren't plastcally deforming larger at proof, while Enfield chambers were.

The bolt stop issue is specific to the early mk3, and is only aparent at high round counts. It was corrected during the war.

As for the mag, it's no more fragile than an Enfield mag. There are many misconceptions about the Ross, but ironically many soldiers had a hard time giving them up for SMLE's when the time came. It's demise wss as much about colonial politics as anything else.
 
Claven2 said:
First I have heard of bolt heat treat issues.

The Ross chambers were cut with exact copies of the Leeds pattern .303 reamer. They were not undersized. When the Ross chambers were opened up, it was because Ross receivers were so hard and meaty that the chambers weren't plastcally deforming larger at proof, while Enfield chambers were.

The bolt stop issue is specific to the early mk3, and is only aparent at high round counts. It was corrected during the war.

As for the mag, it's no more fragile than an Enfield mag. There are many misconceptions about the Ross, but ironically many soldiers had a hard time giving them up for SMLE's when the time came. It's demise wss as much about colonial politics as anything else.
Click to expand...

If you are not familiar with the MkIII bolt heat treatment issues you must have never read any of the books on the Ross, nor examined any rifles that aren't new.

The Canadian Army effort to re-heat treat existing bolt heads while waiting for sufficient bolt head replacements from the factory are well documented.

In my collection I have 1 bolt which doesn't exhibit deformation on the left rear lug from impacting the bolt stop. Switching this bolt between several MkIII rifles turns each rifle in turn into a smooth joy to operate. Transferring the other rifle bolts similarly turns each other rifle into a jambing disaster.

Examination of the problem bolts shows very slight deformation.

I have 1 bolt which is badly deformed to the point of material loss, and have seen a dozen exhibiting similar damage.

I highly recommend obtaining "A Question of Confidence" from Service Publications. I have misplaced my copy, however it is based around a reprint of the 1920s investigation into the Ross and attempts to obtain the facts from the myths.

Bolt stop issues existed in both MkII and MkIII Ross rifles.

The split MkII** pattern of bolt stop was apparently an attempt to soften the impact of the bolt againt the stop, however these split bolt stops break...

Examine some Ross MkII bolts for damage to the bolt stop lug, then come back and tell us again about them not having problems. I have seen several which have had the bolt stop lug broken off of the bolts, deformation is quite common.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom