The exploding Ross story

The first centerfire rifle that I ever pulled the trigger on was a 1905 Ross factory sporter. I was just 17 at the time. That rifle had been used like a crowbar and was in rough shape but I carried it for several hunting seasons and shot it a lot. I picked up another 1905R in much better condition about 7 years ago from a fellow here on CGN and that began a descent into a rabbit hole that I doubt I will ever get out of.
I love the 1905R to carry in the field. At the range, my MKIII ( military 1910 action) rifles see a lot of use each year. All have been sporterized to some degree and only one has not had the barrel cut. Regardless, they all shoot better than I can. Always fun to ring the gong at 300 yards with a 100 year old ex-military open sighted rifle when the scoped hunting rifles at the next bench are kicking up clouds of dust on the backstop.
Hundreds of rounds sent down range each year- No issues.
 
Oh, the Mark III was a terrible beast!

That's why the Brits KEPT tens of thousands of them in store following the end of the Great War...... and USED THEM AGAIN in the Second War!

That's where all those Mark III "Sporters" came from, the ones with the post-WW2 British proofs; they didn't NEED British proofs until the post-War law was passed, the military accepting the DCP Proof because it was IDENTICAL to the London or Birmingham Proof. The Proof ROUNDS used in the Great War were purchased from the Royal Laboratory for that purpose.

Ross chambers were too tight? How's that when the REAMERS were identical?

The PROBLEM was in the inferior British AMMUNITION. This was all spelled out in the Official History, published about 1938 in Ottawa. Volume 30-something, in the Appendices.

Eighth Battalion's Reserve Company, A Company, went up through the gas at St. Julien on April 23-1915, and STOPPED TWO GERMAN DIVISIONS..... with Mark III Rosses. Likely that was the single most horrific rifle engagement in history.

I am not going to go on; I have already written more than 20 posts on this problem in this forum alone.

A final word, this from Capt. George Dibblee, DCM, the hero of the first assault at Regina Trench: "The Ross Rifle was .... unpopular.... due to its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung. Our outfit (5th CMR) had NO trouble with the Ross Rifle. Of course, we kept our equipment CLEAN, unlike some other outfits."
 
As well the Soviets converted the Ross to 7.62x54R they likely acquired when running over Lithuania and won trophies competing . Snipers also preferred the Ross.
 
milsurpo said:
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.

milsurpo
Click to expand...

Contrary to what is often heard the LEE ENFIELD also had great difficulty with this ammo.
One report I`am aware of on the performance of this ammo in the Lee Enfield is dated Apr. 6 1915 stated: "with a majority of these rifles it is impossible to fire rapid", "the extractor does not work when the bolt lever has been raised", "the breach not fitted to MK. VII S.A.A." "The extractor is too weak and fails to grip the rim of the cartridge",

The first gas attacks at Ypres were April 22 1915. The S.M.L.E. chamber size was increased on Jan. 4th 1916. This why many #1 Mk III Lee Enfields have large chambers.

How can we fault a rifle for having issues with ammo it is not designed to use?
If you were to feed the M 1 Garand the rifle General Patton called "the greatest implement of battle ever devised", oversized, soft ammo, how do think it would fare? Not well I am sure.

The M-16 did not work with the ammo it was first issued with. They changed the ammo to fix the problem.
 
Century Arms had a batch of the HMS Canada Mk. III rifles. Sold them rifle with bayonet; rifle only; bayonet only; sporterized rifle.
Because the rifles were RN issue while the battleship was HMS Canada (before it went to Chile as Almirante Latorre), the bayonets were altered to RN pattern. Bowie type blade, black leather frog different from Canadian pattern. The serial numbering on rifles and bayonets was Chilean, not British or Canadian, of course. The ship was scrapped in 1958, resulting in the rifles eventually being sold off as surplus.
Many of the HMS Canada rifles were ones turned in by the First Division when they were exchanged for Lee Enfields. Some had probably been used at 2nd Ypres in April of 1915, when the first major gas attack occurred. The 15th Bn. exchanged their rifles on 15th of June, 1915. Easy to remember. Many of the rifles would have been aboard when HMS Canada participated in the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Other rifles were late production, perhaps added before transfer to Chile to bring the ship's stores up to full complement.
I have two of the rifles, DA386 and DA170 with matching bayonet. DA170 rifle and bayonet were acquired separately, they had been separated.
A Ross that I have often thought I would like to acquire is one of the IIIB rifles supplied to the Brits, sent to the Whites during the Russian Civil War, captured by the Reds, supplied by Stalin to the Mac Paps during the Spanish Civil War, captured by Franco's Fascists and then sold off as surplus by Spain. Quite a bit of 20th Century history in a single rifle.
 
A couple of true stories about the Ross. I researched and verified these from primary sources:

Before WW1 when the Canadian Department of Militia & Defence was evaluating the Ross against the SMLE the Ross team was actually caught oiling and sanding the SMLE breech. When this was discovered the Enfield team, instead of getting angry and cleaning it out, rather smugly said they would continue the competition with their rifle so handicapped. They won, and the lesser capable and more expensive Ross was adopted for political reasons.

The C.E.F. 1st Canadian Division was issued Rosses and used them in their first battles in 1915. They were a disaster. Dirt and heat created a situation where one round would go towards the enemy, the rifle was handed down to someone in the trench to kick open the bolt and reload, then hand it back up. A sort of rotation was established.

The Ross was withdrawn from the 1st division and replaced with SMLE's. Reports said that the troops had by this time already acquired and were using discarded Enfields.

1st Division Rosses were cleaned up and re-issued to the then arriving 2nd Canadian Division. There were strict orders to separate the two divisions so they wouldn't talk and shake the 2nd Division's trust in the Ross. Predictably when the 2nd Division went into battle they had the same problems and the Ross was retired as a front line rifle.
 
smellie said:
Oh, the Mark III was a terrible beast!

That's why the Brits KEPT tens of thousands of them in store following the end of the Great War...... and USED THEM AGAIN in the Second War!

That's where all those Mark III "Sporters" came from, the ones with the post-WW2 British proofs; they didn't NEED British proofs until the post-War law was passed, the military accepting the DCP Proof because it was IDENTICAL to the London or Birmingham Proof. The Proof ROUNDS used in the Great War were purchased from the Royal Laboratory for that purpose.

Ross chambers were too tight? How's that when the REAMERS were identical?

The PROBLEM was in the inferior British AMMUNITION. This was all spelled out in the Official History, published about 1938 in Ottawa. Volume 30-something, in the Appendices.

Eighth Battalion's Reserve Company, A Company, went up through the gas at St. Julien on April 23-1915, and STOPPED TWO GERMAN DIVISIONS..... with Mark III Rosses. Likely that was the single most horrific rifle engagement in history.

I am not going to go on; I have already written more than 20 posts on this problem in this forum alone.

A final word, this from Capt. George Dibblee, DCM, the hero of the first assault at Regina Trench: "The Ross Rifle was .... unpopular.... due to its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung. Our outfit (5th CMR) had NO trouble with the Ross Rifle. Of course, we kept our equipment CLEAN, unlike some other outfits."
Click to expand...

Ax.338 said:
Contrary to what is often heard the LEE ENFIELD also had great difficulty with this ammo.
One report I`am aware of on the performance of this ammo in the Lee Enfield is dated Apr. 6 1915 stated: "with a majority of these rifles it is impossible to fire rapid", "the extractor does not work when the bolt lever has been raised", "the breach not fitted to MK. VII S.A.A." "The extractor is too weak and fails to grip the rim of the cartridge",

The first gas attacks at Ypres were April 22 1915. The S.M.L.E. chamber size was increased on Jan. 4th 1916. This why many #1 Mk III Lee Enfields have large chambers.

How can we fault a rifle for having issues with ammo it is not designed to use?
If you were to feed the M 1 Garand the rifle General Patton called "the greatest implement of battle ever devised", oversized, soft ammo, how do think it would fare? Not well I am sure.

The M-16 did not work with the ammo it was first issued with. They changed the ammo to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

bogusiii said:
A couple of true stories about the Ross. I researched and verified these from primary sources:

Before WW1 when the Canadian Department of Militia & Defence was evaluating the Ross against the SMLE the Ross team was actually caught oiling and sanding the SMLE breech. When this was discovered the Enfield team, instead of getting angry and cleaning it out, rather smugly said they would continue the competition with their rifle so handicapped. They won, and the lesser capable and more expensive Ross was adopted for political reasons.

The C.E.F. 1st Canadian Division was issued Rosses and used them in their first battles in 1915. They were a disaster. Dirt and heat created a situation where one round would go towards the enemy, the rifle was handed down to someone in the trench to kick open the bolt and reload, then hand it back up. A sort of rotation was established.

The Ross was withdrawn from the 1st division and replaced with SMLE's. Reports said that the troops had by this time already acquired and were using discarded Enfields.

1st Division Rosses were cleaned up and re-issued to the then arriving 2nd Canadian Division. There were strict orders to separate the two divisions so they wouldn't talk and shake the 2nd Division's trust in the Ross. Predictably when the 2nd Division went into battle they had the same problems and the Ross was retired as a front line rifle.
Click to expand...

Interesting to compare the different stories.
 
Yes, marked with the 16th battalion. (Canadian Scottish)
Here is a post that I did December 2012.

Yes Smellie; There is a Mrs. Claus
About 4 months ago me and my wife were perusing the shelves down at Mil-arm in Edmonton. Two collectors had consigned a pretty good array of military weapons ranging from dewatt machine guns to some nice shoulder fired weapons. So many goodies, so little cash. Snider's, Martini's, a Krag jorgenson,Johnson,Boys.No1mklll* with grenade cup,no4 still in the wrap etc, etc..Then I spotted it amongst a rack of rifles, Yup there it was a M-10 Ross complete with sling and bayonet. I asked to see it and sure enough CEF 16 stamp on the butt and D.A 69 on the receiver and bayo. Can I put it on layaway? Sorry we can't do that on consignments, damn I thought to myself I just can't spend that much right now. Well I just couldn't get that rifle out of my head so a couple days latter I went down with the intention of putting it on my Visa. The Ross? Sorry some guy bought it and a couple of the other rifles yesterday. Well needless to say my heart dropped. So to make a long story short Christmas day my wife hands me a gift and inside there is another gift,8 boxes later there it is unmistakably the bolt for a Ross. As I looked at her she quietly asked, would you like the rest of your present? Turns out my wife had gone down the very next day and purchased it for me. As my eyes welled with tears my children asked "Is that the best gift you ever received Dad? No I replied that distinction belongs to your mother.
Merry Christmas to all on CGN, and I wish you all a happy and safe New Year.
 
Last edited:
I have one of the DA Rosses. The bolt is miss matched as it has another DA number on it. It was made in 1915 and has CEF I C stamped in a roundel. It also has GG stamped near the production number and date. No bayonet.
I note that the bolt does not have the pin in it to prevent disassembly. Was this common of DA Rosses?
 
Interesting. Neither of mine has a serial on the bolt. Is the number stamped, engraved?
CEF1C, CEF16 or CEF10? How clear is the imprint in the wood?
No DA Mk. III is likely to have a pinned bolt sleeve with altered bolt.
 
Last edited:
The Bolt number is stamped on the top of the cylinder the safety rotates in such that when the bolt is closed it is under the rear sight. It is not a heavy stamp lest the cylinder gets squeezed.
It would be CEF1C though the 1 looks more like an I. Any idea what the CEF1C meant?
 
One school of thought is that CEF16 means Canadian Expeditionary Force 1916.
The other is Canadian Expeditionary Force 16th Bn.
CEFIC or CEF1C, I cannot suggest a meaning. Fits neither year nor Bn. interpretation.
 
Ross Mark I and Ross Mark II
1905-1913

" The controversy behind the adoption of the Ross rifle is very well documented in a variety of sources. To state that matter succinctly, the weapon was adopted more out of political considerations than it was out of military necessity - desire for a Canadian arms industry being one of the reasons. There were other aggravations - Canadian requests for British weapons during the Boer War were turned down to give priority to equipping British troops first. When BSA (Birmingham Small Arms Company) turned down a Canadian request to produce the SMLE in Canada, the search for a suitable substitute began. "

FROM; https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/rifles.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom