Ross vs. Mauser???

Nelson84 said:
Lets say there is a battle in Alberta. Not talking oilers and flames or stamps and eskis. Say 1915, dry conditions long range fire fights. Who would win? The :canadaFlag:Ross rifle against the Mauser? My vote is for the Ross. I may have set up the scenario in favor of the Ross, but to bad not every battle is in the mud.
Click to expand...

The Mustard Gas wins again. As well as the Gewehr 98.
 
The trenches of WW1 were harder on men and equipment than anything we had seen before or since. If the environment won't deep 6 a piece of equipment, then the troops will. If it can be broken, the troops WILL break it. This is why we used the term "soldier-proof" when developing and evaluating any piece of field equipment. It had to be robust, simple, reliable, maintainable and fairly tinker-proof as well. For a variety of reasons the Ross failed to measure up. It lost the confidence of the troops and got the reputation of being a Judas stick. I don't think those were all fairy tales about troops weeping with rage and frustration while trying to kick open the bolts of their fouled Rosses in the face of the enemy. Not too many similar stories about the Lee-Enfield that replaced it.

Personally I like shooting the Ross under range conditions. My father trained with one early in WW2 and spoke highly of it on the range.
 
And am I to assume that because we are in a hypothetical Canadian senario that we get the Canadian 280 vs the British 303?
Because if so than the Germans would all be dead before they were even in 8x57 mauser range.
;)
Bring on the 280 Ross and the A5-35
 
I own and shoot both guns.

Hands down any day of the week............ROSS!
Sorry Mauser guys but the Ross rifle is probably the finest rifle EVER MADE.

I dong need to argue as the holes in my target will always do the talking, sorry Mauser guys.

And for the record I love my Mauser!!
 
Last edited:
Ross is fine for benchrest shooting. As a battle rifle, it is too heavy, the action is too long for the cartridge used, the sights are as fragile as those on the '03 Springfield. For serious use a Mauser would be far better. I would rather have a M1917 over either of them, though.
 
The .280 (and the Ross Rifle) won the famous Bisley international matches in 1908, 1912 and 1913 (King's Prize) plus many other prizes in different competitions on both sides of the Atlantic.
After 1913 the Ross was banned at Bisely the brits 303 could not compete against the Ross.
The Germans knew the Ross was a good one they built The German round .280 Halger Magnum is based on the .280 Ross case.
 
manitou210 said:
The .280 (and the Ross Rifle) won the famous Bisley international matches in 1908, 1912 and 1913 (King's Prize) plus many other prizes in different competitions on both sides of the Atlantic.
After 1913 the Ross was banned at Bisely the brits 303 could not compete against the Ross.
The Germans knew the Ross was a good one they built The German round .280 Halger Magnum is based on the .280 Ross case.
Click to expand...

Thats just like when they banned the corvette from racing in the 80's because it always won said it was unfair.
 
Which Ross? Most of you are talking about the Ross MkII** (1905) target which is where the Ross accuracy reputation was made and confusing it with the Ross MkIII (1910) service rifle which suffered a host of problems, much like the 1903 and 1905 service rifle families.

I would stack a Ross 1910 with properly heat treated bolt, with large bolt stop and reamed chamber against any service rifle of the day. Whoops, not a gun which existed until late 1916 when it had lost the confiedence of its users. Still assuming high quality ammo, not a situation that could be relied upon nor even expected in the trenches or aircraft guns of the day.

The reality is that the Ross 1910 as issued to prewar troops with perfect ammo was very good...however the necessity to replace the defective bolt heads and poorly designed bolt stops resulted in the needless deaths of alot of Canadian troops.

Oh yeah, rifles were issued the crap ammo, because the ground and air craft machine guns needed the good ammo. Rifles should not have.

I've seen Ross 1910 takeoff bolt heads which had the bolt stop wear thru from 1 to all of the left side locking lugs... Not just one bolt, an easy dozen.

I have 2 Ross 1910s, one is smooth as glass, the other is balky as a stubborn mule, the difference? The balky one has a very slight deformity to the rear left lug from impacting the bolt stop.

Choice of the 2? Give me the gew, at least I know its going to work with whatever crap ammo they give me.

Oh yeah, the beautiful (I love mine) perfect Ross MkII** ? They have a poorly designed bolt stop which breaks too, check out the Ross collectors site for more info...
 
Last edited:
Tinman204 said:
I own and shoot both guns.


Sorry Mauser guys but the Ross rifle is probably the finest rifle EVER MADE.
Click to expand...

Thats a bold statement.

If they are/were so great why arent they manufactured anymore? With the patent long expired, any company could be building them. But they dont. lol.
 
Nelson84 said:
Thats just like when they banned the corvette from racing in the 80's because it always won said it was unfair.
Click to expand...

The reason they banned the Ross was because it was cheating.

Who was issuing 280 Ross as a service rifle?

What service rifle Ross was issued with a 30" heavy barrel before the Ross 1910/MkIII?

Enough said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom