Ross Rifle vs Lee Enfield mud test

[dannyd123]

Hey Everyone,

Wanted to mud test once and for all the good ol Ross rifle. My buddy is a teacher and has been teaching the students (from the textbook) that the Ross "did not preform well in the muddy conditions" in WW1. Having read the Ross rifle story, they attribute jams to ammunition tolerances and a bad batch of soft bolt heads. I was curious to how the Ross would preform with its tight tolerances compared to the Lee Enfield No1 mk3. I have 3 of each rifle so I used a sporter of each to test this out. I modeled it after InRange's mud tests, and used mud/soil that is representative of the Somme and Ypres battlefields.Used glacial till keyed out to be Sandy clay loam.

To eliminate it as a variable I used surplus military ammunition crown stamped, FNB 87 marked. I added water as the tests went on to make it runnier. Used a "canteen" worth of water as per the InRange TV mud tests as needed. Let me know if you want a video with more details on the test setup or results/discussion.

Spoiler: the Enfield Failed in similar fashion to InRanges test, bolt blockages and mag feed issues. The Ross powered through everything I could throw at it. I attribute it to the Ross rifles tight tolerances, bolt head design, and lack of ingress into the reciever (although I put mud directly into the receiver to test this too, and still worked).

 

[Painkillers]

An interesting test, but I don't believe any troop would allow their actions to be fouled to anywhere near that extent. In the trenches they used action covers when not in actual use, and they weren't stored under the duckboards of the trench.

I've heard the trope/myth that your school teacher friend is relaying to his students before, but the reason to have British Commonwealth troops all using the same platform is for consistency in manufacture, training, and deployment. While the Ross was said to be more accurate and preferred by snipers over the No1 MkIII, I believe it had more to do with superior sights on the Ross. As psychologically effective as sniping is, it wasn't going to prevent the Germans from racing to the sea and flanking the British/ French in Belgium and France. Artillery, used to smash and demoralize and innovations such as tanks, gas and flame throwers supplemented by air reconnaissance were really what won any particular battle. When it came to small arms hand to hand engagements, the larger magazine capacity of the LE would have been appreciated by those who were bringing it to bear in anger against the Hun. Barely effective sights or not.

The real reason the Ross was shelved, was the British could field the Lee Enfield No1 MkIII in sufficient numbers. Montreal certainly couldn't have equipped the British Army, and Britain wasn't about to requip and retool to produce the Ross, so something had to give...but it had nothing to do with mud or ammunition/chamber tolerances. It was a bureaucratic efficiency is all. This is what the kids should be taught.

 

[flying pig]

I absolutely love this. Good job dannyd123!

Years ago I got in a sticky situation in the woods with a large predatory cat in a snow storm with a Lee-Enfield on my back. Thought of that rifle’s action being fouled by snow had never crossed my mind, after all two generations of our forefathers fought world wars with that rifle and the Canadian woods surely couldn’t be that harsh, ever. Well, here I am having a standoff with this cat, and the LE is frozen solid.

When the bolt is closed the entire upper edge of the locking lug is exposed to fouling. If mud or snow stacks on top of it the LE simply will not open until the fouling is cleared. The Ross bolt design is protected as long as the action is closed. I love both rifles, but I personally prefer the Ross for this reason. I hunt in all weather, from hot September days to frigid cold at the end of November, and for that reason an M-10 is my favourite hunting rifle.

All the British did was squash more of our independence.

The regular troops may have hated the rifle because it jammed and didn’t take rough abuse as well as the LE, and was about a country mile longer than what would have been considered handy in a trench. This I could see being truth.

Had Ross himself been listened to rather than Sam Hughes, things may have turned out differently. I believe his Military Match was a move in the right direction. 26” tube, rid of the junk single stack mag, side slung sling, etc. That rifle built for 303 with the other reliability improvements like the larger bolt stop and E/LC chamber may have had it bulletproof and may have had the troops’ approval. Further, the LE mag could have been utilized and standardized. It honestly wouldn’t have taken much to change over.

Read ‘In The Trenches’. There’s nothing bad said about the Ross. There’s several other eye witness accounts of it being a good rifle too. There’s also a lot of accounts of it being junk, but, if I didn’t know better and was given a rifle that would not chamber military issued ammunition I’d hate the rifle too. Truth is, it’s a rather British thing to do to sacrifice the ‘colonials’ because their ammunition runs much better in our MGs (said in a most proper British accent).

Realistically, the rifle was ahead of its time in many ways. Ross’s cartridge even moreso. It could have been developed into a game changer, Ross’ mind and that of his engineers were definitely forward thinking. Perhaps it would have been us who wound up with the first issued SLR. Or dedicated purpose built sniping rig. But what happened was a gross waste of time, manpower, ideas and dollars. Not to mention how it brought death to one of the most fantastic lines of sporting rifles ever devised.

Good on you for doing the test, I like it!

 

[milsurpo]

dannyd: I hope your friend hasn't stopped teaching from the textbook over one backyard science experiment! We're not talking ancient history here- the answers should be looked for in battle descriptions, of which a great many exist from WW1. For example, the SMLE was found to freeze up (very badly) after immersion in the turbid waters of the surf at Gallipoli. Just fine grains of sand floating in the waves. Well documented and not reproduceable by experimentation. If the Ross Mk III had problems (or was actually superb) in the trenches it should be looked for in reports and not via "experimental archeology." As has been pointed out, your mud application was way beyond normal military testing procedures and I would question your statement that the mud used is representative of those battlefields. To prove that you'd need a detailed sedimentological study of both. As a geologist I can tell you that clays/muds/soils have wildly different compositions. I suspect you also have the standard Canadian bias that the Ross rifle was unfairly treated (Avro Arrow syndrome?). Others have pointed out the other reasons (beyond potential mud-induced jamming) that ended the system. The real lesson for a teacher to teach would be one about Canadian government mismanagement and waste. About why Australia ended up with a P&W plant for manufacturing SMLEs while we ended up with ??

milsurpo

 

[dannyd123]

dannyd: I hope your friend hasn't stopped teaching from the textbook over one backyard science experiment! We're not talking ancient history here- the answers should be looked for in battle descriptions, of which a great many exist from WW1. For example, the SMLE was found to freeze up (very badly) after immersion in the turbid waters of the surf at Gallipoli. Just fine grains of sand floating in the waves. Well documented and not reproduceable by experimentation. If the Ross Mk III had problems (or was actually superb) in the trenches it should be looked for in reports and not via "experimental archeology." As has been pointed out, your mud application was way beyond normal military testing procedures and I would question your statement that the mud used is representative of those battlefields. To prove that you'd need a detailed sedimentological study of both. As a geologist I can tell you that clays/muds/soils have wildly different compositions. I suspect you also have the standard Canadian bias that the Ross rifle was unfairly treated (Avro Arrow syndrome?). Others have pointed out the other reasons (beyond potential mud-induced jamming) that ended the system. The real lesson for a teacher to teach would be one about Canadian government mismanagement and waste. About why Australia ended up with a P&W plant for manufacturing SMLEs while we ended up with ??

milsurpo

First off, I used to research soils with the ministry of natural resources. When I say the soil composition is similar to the ones in the Somme and Ypres battlefield, they are. I've visited the battlefields and keyed out the soils myself and cross referenced them to French studies of the areas. What I tested is representative of those soils. The only variable I tested for was water content, otherwise, the components were identical in ratio.

Yes the test is way beyond normal mud testing. It does prove a point though. The point being that mud was not a factor in the Ross rifle "jamming". That was the sole reason for my experiment. That is all. I wasn't proving that it was "superb in the trenches" as you state. I am well aware of the other reasons for the Ross's downfall. Misinformation should be addressed regardless. And one should question all sources, whether that be textbooks, my mud test, or your posts milsurpo. All have bias.

For the record, I am not a fan of sir Charles Ross or Sam Hughes, but my opinions reflect those of flying pigs post above, where some features of the Ross have some merits and were ahead of their time. The M16 had some of the same hurdles as the Ross when it was introduced in Vietnam. Ammunition intolerances and all. It had a chance to get over those hurdles, where the M10 did not.

 

[flying pig]

First off, I used to research soils with the ministry of natural resources. When I say the soil composition is similar to the ones in the Somme and Ypres battlefield, they are. I've visited the battlefields and keyed out the soils myself and cross referenced them to French studies of the areas. What I tested is representative of those soils. The only variable I tested for was water content, otherwise, the components were identical in ratio.

Yes the test is way beyond normal mud testing. It does prove a point though. The point being that mud was not a factor in the Ross rifle "jamming". That was the sole reason for my experiment. That is all. I wasn't proving that it was "superb in the trenches" as you state. I am well aware of the other reasons for the Ross's downfall. Misinformation should be addressed regardless. And one should question all sources, whether that be textbooks, my mud test, or your posts milsurpo. All have bias.

For the record, I am not a fan of sir Charles Ross or Sam Hughes, but my opinions reflect those of flying pigs post above, where some features of the Ross have some merits and were ahead of their time. The M16 had some of the same hurdles as the Ross when it was introduced in Vietnam. Ammunition intolerances and all. It had a chance to get over those hurdles, where the M10 did not.

Exactly, and given ten more years of peacetime development without the Sam Hughes monkey on his back, the rifle could have really become something special. Just like the Avro Arrow. But you know how it goes…

 

[RRCo.]

Nice work and interesting results. "When the Ross failed it was the rifle, when the Lee Enfield failed it was the ammo"

"Failiures"?

 

[milsurpo]

Dannyd: Given that this forum isn't a scholarly journal, of course everything purporting to be "science-based" needs to be questioned. I'm sure you're aware that if this were a scholarly journal, you'd have to do a lot more than you have to demonstrate that soils from those battlefields have been even crudely replicated in your testing. Lying with science is one of the main forms of misinformation in the world today—so-called "climate science" is full of it. Not saying you're lying, I'm simply pointing out that for your experiment to be a "teachable" observation in school would require a lot more documentation and peer review.

I still say that historical records are the key to this sort of research and not experimental archeology. A good example is the Martini-Henry. You don't have to delve too far into primary source descriptions of battles to find out that under specific conditions the highly lauded MH had very serious problems. Surely there are enough records from Ross users in WW1 to asses their functionality (or lack of)? The SMLE is highly regarded as a very successful design with few documented cases of serious problems despite use in many battles under diverse environmental conditions. I think you'd agree that attempting to establish the reliability of the SMLE with a few tests, in the face of all of that real-world data, would be pointless.

Personally, I've read that huge Ross Rifle book from cover to cover and find it hard to see the Ross as anything but a failure on the part of our then government to manage arms procurement. Nothing new, and you could go back further and see other examples (like our Militia going to war with Riel armed with the Snider in 1885). I own and shoot an M1910 Ross and am not overly impressed. I far prefer my M95 Mannlicher straight-pull.

milsurpo

 

[dannyd123]

Dannyd: Given that this forum isn't a scholarly journal, of course everything purporting to be "science-based" needs to be questioned. I'm sure you're aware that if this were a scholarly journal, you'd have to do a lot more than you have to demonstrate that soils from those battlefields have been even crudely replicated in your testing. Lying with science is one of the main forms of misinformation in the world today—so-called "climate science" is full of it. Not saying you're lying, I'm simply pointing out that for your experiment to be a "teachable" observation in school would require a lot more documentation and peer review.

I still say that historical records are the key to this sort of research and not experimental archeology. A good example is the Martini-Henry. You don't have to delve too far into primary source descriptions of battles to find out that under specific conditions the highly lauded MH had very serious problems. Surely there are enough records from Ross users in WW1 to asses their functionality (or lack of)? The SMLE is highly regarded as a very successful design with few documented cases of serious problems despite use in many battles under diverse environmental conditions. I think you'd agree that attempting to establish the reliability of the SMLE with a few tests, in the face of all of that real-world data, would be pointless.

Personally, I've read that huge Ross Rifle book from cover to cover and find it hard to see the Ross as anything but a failure on the part of our then government to manage arms procurement. Nothing new, and you could go back further and see other examples (like our Militia going to war with Riel armed with the Snider in 1885). I own and shoot an M1910 Ross and am not overly impressed. I far prefer my M95 Mannlicher straight-pull.

milsurpo

The SMLE has decades worth of historical records and use by many different countries. The Ross M10 has a couple of years wartime use (if that), by one country. Records can help, I am not disputing that, but there is value in experimental archeology, I argue especially in this case given the lack of service longevity of this rifle compared to that of the SMLE.

Like I stated earlier, I did this test to assess the Ross rifles preformance in mud, as it is a common view that it jammed because of this particular factor. There are multiple historical sources stating that jams were caused by soft bolt heads and ammunition. I did not come across any definitive sources for or against the case of mud or dirt. Just conjecture, hearsay, an entry in wikipedia and... in school textbooks (which is not a primary source). Perhaps this is the Mandala effect or misconception, or perhaps there was truth in it. This to me was the best way to find out given the lack of information. Yes, my test is not a definitive experiment, but neither are the sources stating that "the Ross accepted only perfectly clean ammunition, totally free of mud and grit, or else it invariably jammed". I think my experiment shines some serious doubt in the validity of that statement, and others claiming mud as the primary cause of jams.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The Brits gave us out of spec .303 and the high quality Canadian made .303 went to the MGs.

Jamming out of spec ammo into a rifle and firing it makes it very difficult to remove. The solution would be with a straight pull to stomp on the bolt handle, causing the bolt to fly back into the bolt stop and deforming the rear lug. Thus exasperating the problem and making it harder to chamber/unload the rifle.

It is also why they would think things such as ‘hardening the bolt head more’ would be a solution. They were addressing the symptoms, not the actual issue. Though things like enlarging the bolt stop would help prevent damage as there would be more surface area in contact.

Ultimately it was a ammo issue as the problem didn’t exist until they received out of spec ammo.

 

[Painkillers]

Has anyone. Anyone at all, actually have an example of this so called "out of spec." ammo? What was out of spec exactly? Why would litterally millions of rounds be fine in one .303 chamber and not another?

 

[RRCo.]

Has anyone. Anyone at all, actually have an example of this so called "out of spec." ammo? What was out of spec exactly? Why would litterally millions of rounds be fine in one .303 chamber and not another?

Because war contractors are often shysters who don't give a crap about anything except making money and have the connections to get away with it. A lot of ammo was made from unsuitable, overly soft or weak alloys. Millions of rounds were simply condemned and scrapped or issued for practice only. In the US case, support for the British was very patchy anyway and the huge German minority in the USA was actively hostile to the point of espionage and sabotage. That's why we have Home Guard Ross rifles. Who ya gonna call when you need Uncle Sam's good will? Mostly you just lump it and move on.

 

[DiMP]

Has anyone. Anyone at all, actually have an example of this so called "out of spec." ammo? What was out of spec exactly? Why would litterally millions of rounds be fine in one .303 chamber and not another?

I thought I'd read before the chamber tolerances were part of the problem. If the Ross was true to spec and the SMLE was a couple thou bigger, that would help to chamber and extract out of spec rounds

 

[flying pig]

Y

I thought I'd read before the chamber tolerances were part of the problem. If the Ross was true to spec and the SMLE was a couple thou bigger, that would help to chamber and extract out of spec rounds

Yes That is correct. The Ross chambers were a few though tighter originally. In the Sporters I believe that’s how he got away with calling it .303 Ross

 

[Bartok5]

I too understood that the Ross M10's problems were rooted in a combination of out-of-spec British ammo in the tight "Target" chambers of the Ross and deformation of the interrupted locking threads of the Bolt-Head due to battering against the Bolt-Stop with each casing ejected. I was led to believe that it was British Vickers MG cartridge casings that were the primary culprit, being of varying specification from different ammo factories in the UK. The out-of-spec ammo sticking in tight Ross chambers was supposedly exacerbated by the clingy mud of Flanders.

The battering of the rear interrupted thread on the Bolt-Head is a real issue that I can see evidence of on my own Ross M10. It wouldn't take much in the way of overly energetic/frantic operation of the Ross action to damage that Rear Thread such that it would cause serious binding when the Bolt was slammed forwards into battery. That would in turn compromise the mechanical unlocking of the Bolt Head from the Barrel Extension and primary extraction of the fired cartridge casing. A bent/battered rear interrupted thread would make both the chambering/locking-in-battery and the unlocking and primary extraction processes far more difficult than they ought to be (if not outright impossible). One might conclude that the Ross M10's basic design is flawed, and they wouldn't be far from the truth of the matter insofar as the Bolt-Stop's relatively small contact surface area is concerned. A larger contact surface to spread out the force of the Bolt's impact would no doubt assist in avoiding the issue of bent Bolt-Head Threads were the Ross to ever resume production in some alternate universe....

 

[flying pig]

I too understood that the Ross M10's problems were rooted in a combination of out-of-spec British ammo in the tight "Target" chambers of the Ross and deformation of the interrupted locking threads of the Bolt-Head due to battering against the Bolt-Stop with each casing ejected. I was led to believe that it was British Vickers MG cartridge casings that were the primary culprit, being of varying specification from different ammo factories in the UK. The out-of-spec ammo sticking in tight Ross chambers was supposedly exacerbated by the clingy mud of Flanders.

The battering of the rear interrupted thread on the Bolt-Head is a real issue that I can see evidence of on my own Ross M10. It wouldn't take much in the way of overly energetic/frantic operation of the Ross action to damage that Rear Thread such that it would cause serious binding when the Bolt was slammed forwards into battery. That would in turn compromise the mechanical unlocking of the Bolt Head from the Barrel Extension and primary extraction of the fired cartridge casing. A bent/battered rear interrupted thread would make both the chambering/locking-in-battery and the unlocking and primary extraction processes far more difficult than they ought to be (if not outright impossible). One might conclude that the Ross M10's basic design is flawed, and they wouldn't be far from the truth of the matter insofar as the Bolt-Stop's relatively small contact surface area is concerned. A larger contact surface to spread out the force of the Bolt's impact would no doubt assist in avoiding the issue of bent Bolt-Head Threads were the Ross to ever resume production in some alternate universe....

They did that once already. It helped but probably not enough. The later mil spec MkIII rifles had a larger bolt stop.

I’ll take it further and say they may have needed a slight redesign in that they likely didn’t need all 7 locking lugs. Combining the left rear two lugs into a solid lug and grinding out the one rib in the receiver may have fixed this, and the action would have still been lots strong for the 280 cartridge. I’ve had several bolts flat out missing the left rear lug altogether.

 

[hannibal.black98]

Very cool, thanks for doing this!!!

A lot of seemingly butthead people in the comments tho… sorry your fav century + old rifle isn’t unstoppable!!! LOL

 

[tokguy]

I absolutely love this. Good job dannyd123!

Years ago I got in a sticky situation in the woods with a large predatory cat in a snow storm with a Lee-Enfield on my back. Thought of that rifle’s action being fouled by snow had never crossed my mind, after all two generations of our forefathers fought world wars with that rifle and the Canadian woods surely couldn’t be that harsh, ever. Well, here I am having a standoff with this cat, and the LE is frozen solid.

When the bolt is closed the entire upper edge of the locking lug is exposed to fouling. If mud or snow stacks on top of it the LE simply will not open until the fouling is cleared. The Ross bolt design is protected as long as the action is closed. I love both rifles, but I personally prefer the Ross for this reason. I hunt in all weather, from hot September days to frigid cold at the end of November, and for that reason an M-10 is my favourite hunting rifle.

All the British did was squash more of our independence.

The regular troops may have hated the rifle because it jammed and didn’t take rough abuse as well as the LE, and was about a country mile longer than what would have been considered handy in a trench. This I could see being truth.

Had Ross himself been listened to rather than Sam Hughes, things may have turned out differently. I believe his Military Match was a move in the right direction. 26” tube, rid of the junk single stack mag, side slung sling, etc. That rifle built for 303 with the other reliability improvements like the larger bolt stop and E/LC chamber may have had it bulletproof and may have had the troops’ approval. Further, the LE mag could have been utilized and standardized. It honestly wouldn’t have taken much to change over.

Read ‘In The Trenches’. There’s nothing bad said about the Ross. There’s several other eye witness accounts of it being a good rifle too. There’s also a lot of accounts of it being junk, but, if I didn’t know better and was given a rifle that would not chamber military issued ammunition I’d hate the rifle too. Truth is, it’s a rather British thing to do to sacrifice the ‘colonials’ because their ammunition runs much better in our MGs (said in a most proper British accent).

Realistically, the rifle was ahead of its time in many ways. Ross’s cartridge even moreso. It could have been developed into a game changer, Ross’ mind and that of his engineers were definitely forward thinking. Perhaps it would have been us who wound up with the first issued SLR. Or dedicated purpose built sniping rig. But what happened was a gross waste of time, manpower, ideas and dollars. Not to mention how it brought death to one of the most fantastic lines of sporting rifles ever devised.

Good on you for doing the test, I like it!

Read Wieland's article on it. It wasn't perfect, but they used the Ross's faults ( real & imagined) to ost Sam Hughes.
Pretty good article IMO

 

[flying pig]

Read Wieland's article on it. It wasn't perfect, but they used the Ross's faults ( real & imagined) to ost Sam Hughes.
Pretty good article IMO

If there was a saving grace in the whole mess, perhaps that was it.

I’d really like to read that article, any idea where I can find it?

 

[RRCo.]

I too understood that the Ross M10's problems were rooted in a combination of out-of-spec British ammo in the tight "Target" chambers of the Ross and deformation of the interrupted locking threads of the Bolt-Head due to battering against the Bolt-Stop with each casing ejected. I was led to believe that it was British Vickers MG cartridge casings that were the primary culprit, being of varying specification from different ammo factories in the UK. The out-of-spec ammo sticking in tight Ross chambers was supposedly exacerbated by the clingy mud of Flanders.

The battering of the rear interrupted thread on the Bolt-Head is a real issue that I can see evidence of on my own Ross M10. It wouldn't take much in the way of overly energetic/frantic operation of the Ross action to damage that Rear Thread such that it would cause serious binding when the Bolt was slammed forwards into battery. That would in turn compromise the mechanical unlocking of the Bolt Head from the Barrel Extension and primary extraction of the fired cartridge casing. A bent/battered rear interrupted thread would make both the chambering/locking-in-battery and the unlocking and primary extraction processes far more difficult than they ought to be (if not outright impossible). One might conclude that the Ross M10's basic design is flawed, and they wouldn't be far from the truth of the matter insofar as the Bolt-Stop's relatively small contact surface area is concerned. A larger contact surface to spread out the force of the Bolt's impact would no doubt assist in avoiding the issue of bent Bolt-Head Threads were the Ross to ever resume production in some alternate universe....

When the bolt stop was enlarged in 1915/16 the deformation problems disappeared. The design hadn't foreseen the possibility of people knocking the bolt open with boots or pieces of wood. The jamming could have been largely or completely resolved by oiling the cartridge cases and or the chambers but no one seems to have thought of that or if they did they decided it wasn't safe.