From what I can understand the Ross was actually a very accurate rifle favoured by snipers. It just could not stand up to the the crud that goes with trench warfare. I doubt my precision rifles would do well operating in WW1 trenches either. Mind you the Ross was supposed too.
Best Bolt Action Milsurp
- Thread starter Crewe
- Start date
From what I can understand the Ross was actually a very accurate rifle favoured by snipers. It just could not stand up to the the crud that goes with trench warfare. I doubt my precision rifles would do well operating in WW1 trenches either. Mind you the Ross was supposed too.
gewehr76
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Issue with accuracy on refurbished mn 91/30 's that we have available, is that most will have worn out crowns due to metal cleaning rods.
These rifles were cleaned from muzzle end and with best efforts to keep rifling clean, soldiers would clean them without muzzle cap thus wearing out the crown of the barrel. Individual marksmanship was not really a priority in times when these rifles were last issued and withdrawn from service in 40's and 50's. Therefore when looking at mn it is really important to look at the crown of the muzzle and not only the bore conditions.
Recrowning usually improves accuracy drastically.
250 + tax and the Recrowning job 100. So with cost of about 350 op you can get a rifle that would shoot beer caps at 100 yards quite nicely.
G76
These rifles were cleaned from muzzle end and with best efforts to keep rifling clean, soldiers would clean them without muzzle cap thus wearing out the crown of the barrel. Individual marksmanship was not really a priority in times when these rifles were last issued and withdrawn from service in 40's and 50's. Therefore when looking at mn it is really important to look at the crown of the muzzle and not only the bore conditions.
Recrowning usually improves accuracy drastically.
250 + tax and the Recrowning job 100. So with cost of about 350 op you can get a rifle that would shoot beer caps at 100 yards quite nicely.
G76
The Ross could stand up to the mud and the crud, but what it could NOT stand up to was reject British-made ammunition which had failed at Proof and was too much oversize for ANY chamber in issue.
There are SO many legends and SO much misinformation floating about regarding the Ross that it can be very difficult to sort-out the good stuff from the foundationless legends.
I knew exactly TWO men who used the Ross in the horrific rifle engagement when the Gas came through at St. Julien during the Second Ypres battle. They were Pte Alex McBain and L/Cpl Robert Courtice and both were with the Reserve Company of 8th Battalion, "A" Company. This was the single Company which went up THROUGH the gas when the French Colonial Line broke. The fight was ONE COMPANY against at least a couple of Divisions which Jerry was trying to shove through that gap. Both men fired their Rosses until they were too hot even to touch in order the reload them. They then used pickup rifles and ammunition from casualties and fired those until they were too hot to touch, then continued, using their own rifles. That isn't USING the rifles; that is PUNISHING them. And the rifles took it. But those men, both of whom later were executives of the GWVA and Founders of the Legion, were using their Rosses with good ammunition. I tried to get some "inside poop" on the Ross problem during my interviews with these men, but neither man would budge: they both remained confirmed advocates of the Ross Rifle and both denied that there had been ANY trouble with their rifles during that action. Indeed, Private McBain very nearly became violent when the issue was raised, shouting that "there was nothing wrong with the God-damned Ross Rifle; it's all LIES!" Being that he had used the Ross in combat..... and that I was only born about 30 years afterwards...... I'll take his word! We must look elsewhere for our solutions.
There is NO truth to the tale that Ross chambers were "match-tight"; the reamers used were PRECISELY copied from the reamers in use at Enfield, BSA and LSA and were made by Clymer, which company has been making specialised precision reamers for more than a century now. The DIFFERENCE came at Proofing: the relatively light Lee-Enfield barrel and Body ring actually EXPANDED about 2/1000 of an inch during Proofing, whereas the heavier Ross frame and barrel DID NOT. The result was a very-slightly smaller chamber in the Ross, although one which still would accept ammunition made to Maximum specification. Further, Canadian ammunition was NOT specially-made "undersize" ammo; it was simply held to the LOWER LIMIT OF TOLERANCE, as had all Canadian rifle ammunition of the period. You can prove this for yourself by getting a decent micrometer and a collection of original ammunition covering the entire Ross Rifle period. The ammunition was FINE.
Yes, the chambers of many Rosses were relieved, leading to some of the horrors which are ejected on the range these days. That was well-advertised at the period. What was NOT well-advertised was the simple fact that the chamber of the Lee-Enfield ALSO received a new specification early in 1916. The ammunition being issued -- the stuff which jammed the Rosses -- was percolating through the system and problems were starting to show up with the SMLE rifle as well. The solution was to tighten up on ammunition specs AND make bigger chambers for everything. "Battlefield conditions" became the scapegoat and "cruddy ammunition" was ignored carefully!
How good IS a Ross? I don't know. My own full-length rifle is one of the rifles from the old HMS CANADA and has markings to the 16th Battalion; these indicate that it COULD also have been at Second Ypres, a mile or so away from the engagement in which Courtice and McBain were engaged. The rifle itself is VERY early production and bears a serial of anomalous type rather than the standard military Ross 3-part number-letter group-year marking. With carefully-handloaded ammunition and very good shooters, off the sandbags, it has repeatedly shot sub-half-inch 2-shot groups at 100 yards. These include the rifle cutting its own bullet-holes. This was done WITH witnesses present. It is the single most accurate rifle I own.
Just trying to clear up some of the fog.
There are SO many legends and SO much misinformation floating about regarding the Ross that it can be very difficult to sort-out the good stuff from the foundationless legends.
I knew exactly TWO men who used the Ross in the horrific rifle engagement when the Gas came through at St. Julien during the Second Ypres battle. They were Pte Alex McBain and L/Cpl Robert Courtice and both were with the Reserve Company of 8th Battalion, "A" Company. This was the single Company which went up THROUGH the gas when the French Colonial Line broke. The fight was ONE COMPANY against at least a couple of Divisions which Jerry was trying to shove through that gap. Both men fired their Rosses until they were too hot even to touch in order the reload them. They then used pickup rifles and ammunition from casualties and fired those until they were too hot to touch, then continued, using their own rifles. That isn't USING the rifles; that is PUNISHING them. And the rifles took it. But those men, both of whom later were executives of the GWVA and Founders of the Legion, were using their Rosses with good ammunition. I tried to get some "inside poop" on the Ross problem during my interviews with these men, but neither man would budge: they both remained confirmed advocates of the Ross Rifle and both denied that there had been ANY trouble with their rifles during that action. Indeed, Private McBain very nearly became violent when the issue was raised, shouting that "there was nothing wrong with the God-damned Ross Rifle; it's all LIES!" Being that he had used the Ross in combat..... and that I was only born about 30 years afterwards...... I'll take his word! We must look elsewhere for our solutions.
There is NO truth to the tale that Ross chambers were "match-tight"; the reamers used were PRECISELY copied from the reamers in use at Enfield, BSA and LSA and were made by Clymer, which company has been making specialised precision reamers for more than a century now. The DIFFERENCE came at Proofing: the relatively light Lee-Enfield barrel and Body ring actually EXPANDED about 2/1000 of an inch during Proofing, whereas the heavier Ross frame and barrel DID NOT. The result was a very-slightly smaller chamber in the Ross, although one which still would accept ammunition made to Maximum specification. Further, Canadian ammunition was NOT specially-made "undersize" ammo; it was simply held to the LOWER LIMIT OF TOLERANCE, as had all Canadian rifle ammunition of the period. You can prove this for yourself by getting a decent micrometer and a collection of original ammunition covering the entire Ross Rifle period. The ammunition was FINE.
Yes, the chambers of many Rosses were relieved, leading to some of the horrors which are ejected on the range these days. That was well-advertised at the period. What was NOT well-advertised was the simple fact that the chamber of the Lee-Enfield ALSO received a new specification early in 1916. The ammunition being issued -- the stuff which jammed the Rosses -- was percolating through the system and problems were starting to show up with the SMLE rifle as well. The solution was to tighten up on ammunition specs AND make bigger chambers for everything. "Battlefield conditions" became the scapegoat and "cruddy ammunition" was ignored carefully!
How good IS a Ross? I don't know. My own full-length rifle is one of the rifles from the old HMS CANADA and has markings to the 16th Battalion; these indicate that it COULD also have been at Second Ypres, a mile or so away from the engagement in which Courtice and McBain were engaged. The rifle itself is VERY early production and bears a serial of anomalous type rather than the standard military Ross 3-part number-letter group-year marking. With carefully-handloaded ammunition and very good shooters, off the sandbags, it has repeatedly shot sub-half-inch 2-shot groups at 100 yards. These include the rifle cutting its own bullet-holes. This was done WITH witnesses present. It is the single most accurate rifle I own.
Just trying to clear up some of the fog.
Last edited:
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
I would say Lee Enfield if the ammo wasn't $50 a box or impossible to find reload components for.
After taking the terrible ammo situation for .303 brit and putting it aside,I would say a good quality Israeli K98 Rebarrel in 7.62mm NATO.
If you get a good one, those suckers can shoot! Fanatical German precision machining/quality in a caliber that's plentiful, affordable and versatile.
After taking the terrible ammo situation for .303 brit and putting it aside,I would say a good quality Israeli K98 Rebarrel in 7.62mm NATO.
If you get a good one, those suckers can shoot! Fanatical German precision machining/quality in a caliber that's plentiful, affordable and versatile.
Thank you, STEVEBC!
Clarke's book, as you will have noticed, was released as a novel. In fact, "only the names have been changed to protect the innocent".
The description of the emergency fog-and-night landing is riveting..... and that is exactly how it happened. Arthur C. Clarke was the first man to do an emergency talk-down night-time landing-by-radar of a JET AIRCRAFT!
For that reason, it belongs on the bookshelf of every airplane nut, war buff and air-traffic controller. It now seems to be out-of-print but copies still can be found at many second-hand bookstores.
Clarke's book, as you will have noticed, was released as a novel. In fact, "only the names have been changed to protect the innocent".
The description of the emergency fog-and-night landing is riveting..... and that is exactly how it happened. Arthur C. Clarke was the first man to do an emergency talk-down night-time landing-by-radar of a JET AIRCRAFT!
For that reason, it belongs on the bookshelf of every airplane nut, war buff and air-traffic controller. It now seems to be out-of-print but copies still can be found at many second-hand bookstores.
We're not suggesting the problems experienced with the Ross in the trenches are a myth are we?
The fact is that the troops lost confidence in the rifle which caused it to be discarded as a judas stick. There were a number of factors in play here of which ammo was one. The rifle may well have performed reliably with Canadian made ammo, but the reality was that Canadians were issued whatever ammo was in the Brit supply chain.
The complicated action of the Ross must have been a real bear to keep clean, mud free and servicable in trench conditions. The Ross was preferred by our snipers who were able to keep them clean and serviceable and had more opportunities to seek out the preferred ammo for them.
I've owned a few Rosses and really enjoyed shooting them on the range. They are a fascinating part of our military history. I found myself thinking of the Cdn troops who had to use them when visiting our various WW1 battlefields several times, esp at St Julien where our soldiers decided to dump them for the more reliable, if less elegant, Lee Enfield.
The fact is that the troops lost confidence in the rifle which caused it to be discarded as a judas stick. There were a number of factors in play here of which ammo was one. The rifle may well have performed reliably with Canadian made ammo, but the reality was that Canadians were issued whatever ammo was in the Brit supply chain.
The complicated action of the Ross must have been a real bear to keep clean, mud free and servicable in trench conditions. The Ross was preferred by our snipers who were able to keep them clean and serviceable and had more opportunities to seek out the preferred ammo for them.
I've owned a few Rosses and really enjoyed shooting them on the range. They are a fascinating part of our military history. I found myself thinking of the Cdn troops who had to use them when visiting our various WW1 battlefields several times, esp at St Julien where our soldiers decided to dump them for the more reliable, if less elegant, Lee Enfield.
I don't collect Ross's although I own and shoot one Mk III. A few years ago I won a copy of "The Ross Rifle Story" (Phillips, Dupuis, and Chadwick) at a club milsurp shoot and attempted to read it. Not a very appealing story being laced with politics and governmental incompetence. Lets just say as a Canadian I can't say I have a warm feeling towards this rifle. Getting back to the original topic, one way to assess the best bolt action must be longevity in service- if something is officially issued someone is still finding it useful for something! In my Lee Enfield collection I have an 1889 MLM and a 1965 ishapore 2A1- 76 years apart! I believe the 2A1 was manufactured through '74- 86 years from adoption of the MLM. That sort of manufacturing longevity says to me the Lee Enfield is the best and is followed closely by the Mosin-Nagant.
milsurpo
milsurpo
I'd put in a plug for the P14 Enfield and it's American derivative, the Model 1917. The Brits developed the P14 to improve on the shortcomings of the Lee Enfield, and its a good one. Strong, Mauser type action, excellent sights, accurate and reliable. What's not to like about it?
You shouldn't get too much flak over a Finn M39, M28 or M27 Nagant. Ditto for a M98 or M96 Mauser, a M1903 Springfield or a P14/M1917 Enfield. Toss in a MkIII and No 4 Lee Enfield and call it good. All were well proven under combat conditions to be reliable, safe and accurate. Its interesting that bolt action service rifles reached the top of the developmental curve more than 100 yrs ago now.
Thanks for some real insite into this. I recently handled a Ross at the range. The owner is long time poster here and had only great things to say about the Ross and its accuracy. It went on my "don't pass it up if the opportunity arises" guns.
