The exploding Ross story

MD

MD

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
I had a table at the HACS gun show and a guy came by asking where to find a full wood stock for a Ross. I couldn't 't help him. He said he had a sporterized one with a full length barrel and military sights intact and want to restore it for a wall hanger because "You can't shoot them. They blow backwards. Killed more Canadians than Canadians killed enemy soldiers with them."

I've had a Ross M10 for 52 years. Hasn't killed me yet.

I didn't even go into the history, the pinned bolt to prevent disassembly and bad reassembly etc. Not worth it. Just let him wander off happy in his little world after delivering the safety lecture.

I had been told the same thing when I was given the gun at 13. I tied it into a tire and test fired it with a string before using it, then went out and shot my first deer with it.
 
The issue, apparently, was the upkeep of the rifles. Great guns on the range but once in the trenches, and dirty, everything went south. The tolerances were too tight for a fighting rifle causing the issues they became known for. Of course one of these was the bolt not locking home before firing in some cases.
 
MD said:
I had a table at the HACS gun show and a guy came by asking where to find a full wood stock for a Ross. I couldn't 't help him. He said he had a sporterized one with a full length barrel and military sights intact and want to restore it for a wall hanger because "You can't shoot them. They blow backwards. Killed more Canadians than Canadians killed enemy soldiers with them."

I've had a Ross M10 for 52 years. Hasn't killed me yet.

I didn't even go into the history, the pinned bolt to prevent disassembly and bad reassembly etc. Not worth it. Just let him wander off happy in his little world after delivering the safety lecture.

I had been told the same thing when I was given the gun at 13. I tied it into a tire and test fired it with a string before using it, then went out and shot my first deer with it.
Click to expand...

Don't your hunting partners get irritated with you caring that tire around ?
 
Wormald1995 said:
the Ross rifle is a great shooting rifle, unfortunately it's high build quality and tight tolerances made it not very ideal for combat
Click to expand...

The situation of the rifle jamming wasn’t helped with the issue of British.303 ammo, which had poor quality control, and tolerances , with unskilled workers , trying to mass produce the .303 cartridges , with our Canadian made ammo , the situation was better ,
 
Only thing worse and inaccurate than old wives tales is old hunter tales.
Not much original thought and logic from either.
"I heard it and it must be true."

All the armies eventually issued some action cover to keep the dirt out.
Best ammunition(reliable and in spec.) was reserved for the MG crews.

Once let a friend fire some shots from mine because he said it looked different.
Nearly #### his pants after when I told him it was a Ross.
 
Last edited:
All the armies eventually issued some action cover to keep the dirt out.
Best ammunition(reliable and in spec.) was reserved for the MG crews.
Click to expand...

In the book;
A Rifleman Went To War,,,, the author, Herbert W. McBride touches on this subject.

It is a must read for anyone interested in WW1 small arms.
 
The first time I shot my Ross Mk III (at a public range) there was a guy I didn't know standing right behind my bench. I turned around and warned him that he might not want to be standing there as the bolt might blow out! Next time I looked he was 50 feet away and never returned. Of course I knew it was safe but couldn't help thinking about the stories that first time out with it. Mine lacks the rivet that stops improper assembly but I've intentionally assembled it incorrectly and it's not easy at all. I did manage to push the bolt home in this way where the bolt-head doesn't rotate into battery but you'd have to be awfully distracted not to feel the difference (like maybe with a horde of German infantry rushing your trench?). Regarding the inability of the rifle to digest available ammo- that is a design fault. Military rifles have to be able to use any and all of the available ammo. I have a copy of "The Ross Rifle Story" and must say, it's a long and painful read. Horrible Government mismanagement of the situation. Australia got a Pratt and Whitney SMLE plant- we got Sir Charles.

milsurpo
 
milsurpo said:
The first time I shot my Ross Mk III (at a public range) there was a guy I didn't know standing right behind my bench. I turned around and warned him that he might not want to be standing there as the bolt might blow out! Next time I looked he was 50 feet away and never returned. Of course I knew it was safe but couldn't help thinking about the stories that first time out with it. Mine lacks the rivet that stops improper assembly but I've intentionally assembled it incorrectly and it's not easy at all. I did manage to push the bolt home in this way where the bolt-head doesn't rotate into battery but you'd have to be awfully distracted not to feel the difference (like maybe with a horde of German infantry rushing your trench?). Regarding the

inability of the rifle to digest available ammo- that is a design fault. Military rifles have to be able to use any and all of the available ammo. I have a copy of "The Ross Rifle Story" and must say, it's a long and painful read. Horrible Government mismanagement of the situation. Australia got a Pratt and Whitney SMLE plant- we got Sir Charles.

milsurpo
Click to expand...


From what I have read , Sir Charles was a eccentric, pompous nut case , Othis of C&R Arsenal has a good video on the Ross , and talks about Sir Charles , Just mind boggling that the Canadian government had this a** ,to design a Infantry rifle , matters wouldn’t improved by the interference, from another nutcase , Sir Sam Hughes , Minister of Milita, the then title for Minister of Defence
 
cigar_man said:
In the book;
A Rifleman Went To War,,,, the author, Herbert W. McBride touches on this subject.

It is a must read for anyone interested in WW1 small arms.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was going to post the same but you beat me to it. If I recall correctly McBride did say the the issues with the Ross were attributed to ammunition ( as mentioned earlier), and it was the British produced MG ammo that was causing the problems. However, I read the book a long time ago and my memory is not 100%.
 
There was also the issue early on with the M10 rosses where the bolt heads weren't heat treated properly so the locking lugs were softer than they should have been. So that coupled with the poor quality of the british ammo and beating the rifles open to clear a jam only compounded the issue.
 
cigar_man said:
In the book;
A Rifleman Went To War,,,, the author, Herbert W. McBride touches on this subject.

It is a must read for anyone interested in WW1 small arms.
Click to expand...






Link to the PDF of the book here.



What's not often mentioned is McBride's (original?) contribution to the .45 vs. 9mm "conversation"; this was picked-up by major book fan Col. Jeff Cooper (who also wrote the foreword to my copy of ARWTW).... :wave:
 
Gentlemen:
42 Rosses and 63 years of shooting them (started at 10 yoa).
Still here and shooting with both eyes, (somewhat failing).
The Brits regarded us "Colonials" as cannon fodder in both great wars and insisted in the first that they be (re)equipped with British made everything including ammunition made "over there".
The sweetheart contracts resulted in tragically flawed heat treatment and quality inspection of ammunition and thus the cartridges "sticking" in the chambers.
Alas, that is documented and discussed and dust in the past.

A CAUTION on a condition that DID result in a blowback. I was test firing an M-10 (the proper nomenclature for the factory sporter). The rifle had a damaged threaded collar (with the locking "lugs (raised ridges) worn off), located behind the eared washer/spacer on the spring in the inside the bolt. The net result was that the firing pin was still protruding from the bolt head, as the bolt went into battery. Rifle fired as the bolt was closed with some discomfiture to the right palm (and the authors frame of mind!). Took me a few minutes and a disassembly to puzzle it out, and so thus this caution to check for protruding firing pins after the bolt is rotated into battery (requires removal from rifle).

Regards to Y'all
OGC
 
2 things, wrong ammo during war: chamber were tighter than usual brit enfield so ammo was sometimes difficult to go in. Reason why they didn’t go with the ross after.
Second is when you dismantle the bolt head, there is a specific way to put it back. If you don’t do it correctly the bolt will close like usual but when the firing strike it can blowback the complete bolt backward. That’s why you see a big pin through the bolt. Those were «#repaired#» at the factory. After the pin you werent able to put it back wrongly
 
The ammunition issue was with ammunition produced by one specific British contractor.
This ammunition didn't work well in either Lee Enfield rifles or machine guns. Thick rims.
The Lee Enfield chamber drawing was revised, although the chambers were not reamed badly oversize as was done with MK. III Ross rifles.
The pin inserted in the bolt sleeve, along with the alterations to the bolt was done during WW2.
If a bolt is assembled incorrectly, the bolt does not function normally.
 
Thanks for the precision for the ammo.
I thought that before making the alterations, you were able to put the bolt back and even strike the primer and after was the problem?
 
I always thought the story pre-dated WW1 and was due to the incident involving the NWMP in July 1906.

Per Phillips and Kirby, the rifle was apparently a Mk 1* carbine and the injured man was reportedly Sergeant-Major WJ Bowdridge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom