I'm being offered a Ross Mk 3 service rifle as a vintage shooting rifle. Since what I know about Ross rifles could easily be written on the head of a pin, I'm asking here for points to look for. It is in .303 British, and is, supposedly in very fine condition, with a great and shiny bore, and knowing the vendor as I do, I have no doubts about his sincerity.
So, Gentlemen, what to look for, please?
I also found this article from an Ottawa Citizen newspaper in 1948 -
Why Ross Rifles Jammed
New light thrown on famous controversy of First Great War
Editor, Citizen: Mr. Charles A. Bowman's article of April 22 in "Through the Citizen's Looking Glass" is an interesting account of the political phase of the Ross rifle controversy in the First Great War. This was the public aspect of it.
The matter of defective ammunition is another tale. I would like to add something to Mr. Bowman's article about the actual cause of the failure of Canada's official arm in the field. This has never been brought to light, nor are there many who know the real reason.
Quite wrongly the blame was attributed to faulty British cartridges. Actually the failure stemmed from a not-too-good design, yet the rifle was supposed to be used with the English type of cartridge which Canadian troops must use when at war.
There are two critical differences between the Enfield and the Ross. The chamber of the former is larger and, of far greater importance, it is provided with a mechanism having a positive "primary extraction" which makes "jamming" an impossibility.
On the other hand the efficiency of the Ross so-called "straight pull" depends upon the looseness of the fired case in the chamber.
I was told, in 1912, by the one person responsible for the policy of cartridge making that when he was shown the chamber dimensions of the new rifle he pointed to the small size of it as undesirable and asked that it be increased to that of the Enfield. When this was emphatically refused, the only alternative left was to change the cartridge so that it would function in either rifle. This in effect was to make Canada's cartridge different from the English one, even though it was nominally the same.
To accomplish this change, two departures were made. The case under-head-size was diminished, while a tougher, more resilient brass was used in manufacture. Neither of these would be apparent, nor suspected, and could be missed in the most critical microscopic examination. Microscopically the case was identically the same as the English one.
Apart from the smaller size to fit the Ross, the new method of brass control was necessary, for when fired in the larger (Enfield) rifle an increase of 65 per cent brass stress had to be guarded against, or the brass would be strained beyond its elastic limit. Here there is a powder gas pressure of about 50,000 pounds per square inch to be considered.
With none of these complications to contend with, the English case could be made with a softer brass.
A simple, non-technical explanation of the action of the cartridge when fired is that when it is subjected to the pressure of 50,000 pounds per square inch, the case, expanding to its greatest size, forces outward every minute looseness in the breech mechanism, at the same time expanding the steel of the rifle breech. When the pressure abates, the steel returns to its normal size.
If the brass of the case is inert, it is held "jammed" because the mechanism cannot return to its free condition and this too, is accentuated by the contraction of the rifle.
Here radical differences of the rifles show:
With the Enfield, the first lifting of the breech lever draws the bolt head away from the closed position in the breech and pulls the case out of the chamber by means of the extractor attached to the head. This positive action is the "primary extraction."
With the Ross, however, the bolt head can only turn out of the locked position in the breech, if there is no friction to interfere with this action.
A statement made during the war blamed the English ammunition for the trouble and that "no cartridge made in Quebec had this fault".
When the late Lord Rhondda, as Mr. D. A. Thomas, first visited Quebec to start his investigation of munitions and to speed production, almost his first question to me was to know if I could explain the Ross failures. When I said I had a good idea as to the cause, I was asked to accompany him to the Ross factory. My reasons, stated to him and the British Arms Inspector were considered sound enough for Lord Rhondda to at once cancel the balance of 95,000 rifles due off the contract for 100,000 ordered by the British Government.
An attempt was made, about this time, to enlarge the chamber of the rifle in the Armourers' shops in England, by increasing it by four thousandths of an inch. As a member of the Small Arms Committee I blocked the official approval of this on the grounds that it would enlarge the chamber to the condemned size of the Enfield.
It will be seen that the whole fault of the rifle lay in the inability to extract the fired case. In other words, the vaunted "straight pull" was not only useless, but dangerous in a service arm which must be free of any weak features.
It was reported, unofficially, in 1915, that a rifle of somewhat similar weak design had been the arm of the Austrian army: that in the first six months of the war there were so many casualties due to "jammed" rifles, a complete re-arming with German rifles had to be made.
Lt. Col. Sydney S. Weatherbie
Ottawa, April 27, 1948
So, Gentlemen, what to look for, please?
I also found this article from an Ottawa Citizen newspaper in 1948 -
Why Ross Rifles Jammed
New light thrown on famous controversy of First Great War
Editor, Citizen: Mr. Charles A. Bowman's article of April 22 in "Through the Citizen's Looking Glass" is an interesting account of the political phase of the Ross rifle controversy in the First Great War. This was the public aspect of it.
The matter of defective ammunition is another tale. I would like to add something to Mr. Bowman's article about the actual cause of the failure of Canada's official arm in the field. This has never been brought to light, nor are there many who know the real reason.
Quite wrongly the blame was attributed to faulty British cartridges. Actually the failure stemmed from a not-too-good design, yet the rifle was supposed to be used with the English type of cartridge which Canadian troops must use when at war.
There are two critical differences between the Enfield and the Ross. The chamber of the former is larger and, of far greater importance, it is provided with a mechanism having a positive "primary extraction" which makes "jamming" an impossibility.
On the other hand the efficiency of the Ross so-called "straight pull" depends upon the looseness of the fired case in the chamber.
I was told, in 1912, by the one person responsible for the policy of cartridge making that when he was shown the chamber dimensions of the new rifle he pointed to the small size of it as undesirable and asked that it be increased to that of the Enfield. When this was emphatically refused, the only alternative left was to change the cartridge so that it would function in either rifle. This in effect was to make Canada's cartridge different from the English one, even though it was nominally the same.
To accomplish this change, two departures were made. The case under-head-size was diminished, while a tougher, more resilient brass was used in manufacture. Neither of these would be apparent, nor suspected, and could be missed in the most critical microscopic examination. Microscopically the case was identically the same as the English one.
Apart from the smaller size to fit the Ross, the new method of brass control was necessary, for when fired in the larger (Enfield) rifle an increase of 65 per cent brass stress had to be guarded against, or the brass would be strained beyond its elastic limit. Here there is a powder gas pressure of about 50,000 pounds per square inch to be considered.
With none of these complications to contend with, the English case could be made with a softer brass.
A simple, non-technical explanation of the action of the cartridge when fired is that when it is subjected to the pressure of 50,000 pounds per square inch, the case, expanding to its greatest size, forces outward every minute looseness in the breech mechanism, at the same time expanding the steel of the rifle breech. When the pressure abates, the steel returns to its normal size.
If the brass of the case is inert, it is held "jammed" because the mechanism cannot return to its free condition and this too, is accentuated by the contraction of the rifle.
Here radical differences of the rifles show:
With the Enfield, the first lifting of the breech lever draws the bolt head away from the closed position in the breech and pulls the case out of the chamber by means of the extractor attached to the head. This positive action is the "primary extraction."
With the Ross, however, the bolt head can only turn out of the locked position in the breech, if there is no friction to interfere with this action.
A statement made during the war blamed the English ammunition for the trouble and that "no cartridge made in Quebec had this fault".
When the late Lord Rhondda, as Mr. D. A. Thomas, first visited Quebec to start his investigation of munitions and to speed production, almost his first question to me was to know if I could explain the Ross failures. When I said I had a good idea as to the cause, I was asked to accompany him to the Ross factory. My reasons, stated to him and the British Arms Inspector were considered sound enough for Lord Rhondda to at once cancel the balance of 95,000 rifles due off the contract for 100,000 ordered by the British Government.
An attempt was made, about this time, to enlarge the chamber of the rifle in the Armourers' shops in England, by increasing it by four thousandths of an inch. As a member of the Small Arms Committee I blocked the official approval of this on the grounds that it would enlarge the chamber to the condemned size of the Enfield.
It will be seen that the whole fault of the rifle lay in the inability to extract the fired case. In other words, the vaunted "straight pull" was not only useless, but dangerous in a service arm which must be free of any weak features.
It was reported, unofficially, in 1915, that a rifle of somewhat similar weak design had been the arm of the Austrian army: that in the first six months of the war there were so many casualties due to "jammed" rifles, a complete re-arming with German rifles had to be made.
Lt. Col. Sydney S. Weatherbie
Ottawa, April 27, 1948
Last edited:
