Best Bolt Action Milsurp

purple said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have owned and studied Rosses for over 30 years. Even did some rapid fire, 30-40 rounds a few times with a couple different sporterized MK III Rosses. They did just fine by the way.

The oversized soft .303 ammunition that the Brits had issued was the main problem the Ross had. This same ammo was taken out of service for the Lee Enfield, as it was sticking in the chambers and the extractors were ripping the rims off. The report on it for the L. E. that I am aware of is dated Apr. 6 1915. The first gas attacks at Ypres were April 22 1915. Yet they issued it to the Canadians and the Canadian ammo ended up with the machine guns because they required good ammo or they would jam.

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

As for the confidence aspect. Many men never lost confidence in it. And most others had regained it once the issues were sorted out. Since when does a soldier have a say in what weapon he is to use anyway?

Along with the politics and propaganda, it is pretty well known that the Brits at the time were doing everything they could to undermine anything produced in the colonies.
 
Last edited:
Infantrymen in the field aren't ordnance engineers or armorers. They are issued a personal weapon and the associated cleaning equipment and ammunition and are trained to use it incl loading, unloading, aiming, firing and user maintenance / cleaning. They are also trained in procedures to deal with a variety of malfunctions. If the weapon fails to function properly due to poor design, faulty ammo or lack of suitable cleaning equipment troops lose confidence in it and responsible commanders are obliged to remedy problems or remove the weapon from service and replace it with one that will function reliably.

We can speculate on just what caused reliability problems with the Ross 100 years after the fact, but whatever it was it clearly couldn't be resolved in time to leave the rifle in the hands of the troops without a huge impact on morale and operations.

Its useful to remember that we only had 1 Division in the field at the time of the Battle of St Julien in 1915 and that the Canadians did not control their own logistics system, incl ammo supply. They relied on the British supply chain for most things incl ammo. There was no assurance that "good" Cdn ammo could have been supplied for the Ross at any or all times. If it was available it wouod have been a welcome bonus.

There's a world of differece between a civilian user's experience with a rifle and what happens with the troops in field conditions. My father was initially trained on the Ross in WW2 and thought it was great on the range. But he never had to operate it in combat.

There is something of a similar story with the initial combat use of the M16 in Vietnam. The rifle was bedevilled by reliability problems due to a switch of propellant in the ammo and a failure to issue proper cleaning equipment to the troops so that they could maintain the weapon in the field. When these issues were resolved the rifle went on to enjoy an excellent reputation for reliability.
 
If I had to take a any bolt action rifle into combat, I would choose my K31. I prefer my G1911 from a emotional aspect, but my K31 is much more practical. Easy to use, easy to clean, fast, accurate, short, with some of the best ammo ever issued to a military rifle, 100m sight setting, and relatively quick to acquire sights. The only thing I would add to the design is locking screws to the trigger guard screws.
 
It would be good to see a definitive history on tbe Ross in service with the CEF. The facts are generalized or obscured by the official histories and anecdodal accounts. Its unlikely that there's much technical data to be found, altho the Brits might have some in archives. It would be interesting to see what might exist in the war diaries of the various battalions which were serving in the 1st Division at the time.

There were a lot of political sensitivities around the Ross 100 years ago, but the basic question remains;what went so wrong to cause the rifle to be taken out of issue and to be permanently replaced by the Lee Enfield. We had many thousands of Rosses on hand, so if the problem was correctable with different ammo or by modifications to the rifle, why wasn't this done.
 
They did solve any issue that actually existed in the rifles by 1916. There was small things such as increasing the bolt stop size (as when slammed into heavily, by say someone kicking open the bolt on the straight pull, it would deform the rear lug making it harder to go into battery), etc.

They even made a trials shorter pattern which was about the size of the Lee Enfield but with the Ross action and sights. When trialed it was greatly preferred by all involved over the Lee Enfield, but by that point faith had been lost in the rifle. Sad really, the rifle went through the same amount of teething pains as the Lee Enfield, or the Mauser, but only 20 years after those rifles went through their teething pains, and during a warzone instead of peacetime.
 
We hear that the men lost confidence in the Ross as the as the reason it was taken out of service. While some had lost faith in it or just liked the shorter, lighter Lee Enfield. Many of the troops were quite happy with it, and some preferred it.

Even though they were receiving both positive and negative reviews on the rifle in 1916. It had been proved that the rifle was now working satisfactory. They had also sorted out how to supply ammo that worked reliably in the Ross.

The decision of the fate of the Ross was then handed to British Gen. Haig, who promptly said it should be taken from service as the men had lost confidence in it.

The Brits had been saying since 1902 when the Ross saga started, there should be a service rifle of universal pattern for use throughout the Empire. They finally got their wish.
 
@ Ax.338

"The Brits had been saying since 1902 when the Ross saga started, there should be a service rifle of universal pattern for use throughout the Empire. They finally got their wish."

Very true. Let us not forget the WHOLE story. Britain was adopting the SMLE but Canada would not be ALLOWED to purchase any. Canada would not be ALLOWED to set up a factory and produce the SMLE here. BSA would not be ALLOWED to set up a plant in Canada to build the SMLE. BSA would not even be ALLOWED to sell SMLEs to Canada.

Those were the options. They were ALL proposed. They were ALL ruled against in turn. Canada had several choices: Canada could buy more Sniders, Canada might buy Martinis, Canada might even be allowed to purchase more Long Lees as they became available as surplus.... but Canada would NOT be allowed to have parity with The Mother Country. The Colonial Office was adamant on this, having forgotten conveniently that Canada was no longer a COLONY but rather a SELF-GOVERNING DOMINION.

Then along comes Sir Charles Ross, saying in effect, "Hey, guys, I have a design for a rifle which is a helluvva lot BETTER than the SMLE. Give me a contract and I'll build and equip a factory out of MY OWN POCKET and build you all the rifles you can use!"

It really wasn't much of a choice, was it?

So the Ross entered production, had a couple of bobbles with the 1903, quickly became the 1905 which went through 82 design variations at the behest of the "experts", proceeding from Mark II to Mark II***** between 1906 and 1910...... and setting new records in every classification in which it was shot. The 1911 record score (74/75 at 100 yards) remained unbeaten for half a century.

The stage thus was set for the 1910, the Mark III, Ross's "perfect" military and sporting rifle.

................ ........................ ............................ ............................ ..........................

A "Smellie" (or possibly simply "smelly") RANT:

As far as "truly authoritative" books are concerned, such shall never exist. EVEN Wikipedia insists on PUBLISHED sources and prohibits "original research" and "anecdotal evidence". Consider this for a moment. I have done my own testing and research concerning the Ross; NONE of it meets "accepted academic standards". I have interviewed men who actually USED the Ross in the single most horrific rifle engagement ever fought. Their defence of the Ross in the most trying conditions EVER..... does not meet academic standards; their opinions are "anecdotal" and thus inadmissable..... and the paid-for PUBLISHED slurs against the rifle are accepted as Gospel.

As far as working to obtain a degree in something as "unorthodox" as small-arms development and its historical influence, forget it. I TRIED. I attended Brandon University and was the only student to receive an "A" grade in an impromptu (streetcorner) examination from Dr. Charles Lightbody. Dr. Lightbody's debilitating penultimate stroke ("cerebral accident" if we must be scientific) prevented my Rhodes which Doc had planned for me. The 1970 Postal Strike (which saw an unofficial 100-odd TONS of First Class mail burned in Manitoba alone) prevented my application from reaching Rice, where Dr. "Red" Roy was awaiting it. My completed thesis, in early form, was sent to Dr. Roy for grading and suggestions; he read it and sent it on to Ed Ezell at the Smithsonian. I am still waiting for the results. The thesis, I am told from another source, was flawed; I did not understand the great importance of fluency in Mediaeval French and a thorough knowledge of Froissart should one attempt to analyse the forces and stresses working in the mechanism of the Maxim Gun in its production form. The academic world exists in its little ivy'd ivory towers and has little interest in The Real World. That leaves ANY and ALL research as "anecdotal" and "not peer-reviewed" and therefore vastly inferior because, not having been PUBLISHED, it does not exist to Academics. Not having been "peer-reviewed" it has no value. I query: in this area, who are my peers? There are a handful of people on HERE who I would regard as qualified to critique my work, but damned few elsewhere. We are in an academic area of nonexistence, period. I am qualified to offer experience and opinions HERE; I am qualified to identify unknown weapons for the Canadian War Museum and for the Imperial War Museum (I have done both) and I have had my greasy little hands inside the VERY first Maxim ever made. But I am NOT an "expert". If you want an "expert" you have to ask the guy in the ivy-covered ivory tower: the guy who "hates guns", votes NDP or farther Left, regards the Army as a regrettable collection of uncouth illiterates and has never been on a rifle-range in his life!

HE'S THE EXPERT!

And I STILL think the Ross had a LOT of good points. So did my Grandfather, a Sniper with 54 Battalion. But neither of US "know anything".

And neither do the rest of us. Let the fun and games proceed!
 
Last edited:
I found C&Rsenal's video on the Ross to be pretty informative. They go through a whole slew of small problems that added up to one big problem for the Ross, and also concede that most of the issues were worked out by the time the Ross was pulled from service. Their info on Ross himself, and his political backers is quite interesting as well.

Like any controversial subject, I feel like people often form a certain emotional, or in the case of the Ross, patriotic attachment to an inanimate object, which always muddies the debate. Reminds me of another "could have been" piece of Canadian military hardware, the Avro Arrow.
 
The_Champ said:
I found C&Rsenal's video on the Ross to be pretty informative. They go through a whole slew of small problems that added up to one big problem for the Ross, and also concede that most of the issues were worked out by the time the Ross was pulled from service. Their info on Ross himself, and his political backers is quite interesting as well.

Like any controversial subject, I feel like people often form a certain emotional, or in the case of the Ross, patriotic attachment to an inanimate object, which always muddies the debate. Reminds me of another "could have been" piece of Canadian military hardware, the Avro Arrow.
Click to expand...

You mean this video. Its long but I watched the entire thing. Very interesting

 
That is a great video for sure.

Getting back to the best bolt action milsurp. I'll say that my mk3 Ross drives nails, averaging sub moa groups throughout all the years I've owned it. It's got the smoothest trigger, bolt operates very fast and the sights on it are as good for my eyes as most of my parker hale arrangements.

Ross really is a nice gun

I also love my m96 Swedish Mausers. So easy to make hits at 500m on my 10" steel plate.

My 1903 Springfield makes quick work of any target in front of it.

Basically I'd say most if not all bolt action milsurp I've owned are capable of good accuracy once I practice with it.

Practice makes perfect as they say.
 
Last edited:
The_Champ said:
I found C&Rsenal's video on the Ross to be pretty informative. They go through a whole slew of small problems that added up to one big problem for the Ross, and also concede that most of the issues were worked out by the time the Ross was pulled from service. Their info on Ross himself, and his political backers is quite interesting as well.
Click to expand...

I have not watched the C&Rsenal's video since it first came out, and will have to watch it again when I get some spare time.

I do remember, that although quite good, it did have some mistakes and misinformation. So should not taken entirely as gospel.
 
Concerning the Ross; I liked Wieland's article concerning it in the May 2014 magazine... Rifle- Sporting Arms Journal( volume 46, number 3, issue No. 274 ) . Delves into the politics of it all quite nicely
 
A WW1 vet told me the only thing he liked about the Ross over the SMLE was that if you fired 5 rounds rapid from a Ross you could warm your hands on the barrel.
 
green said:
A WW1 vet told me the only thing he liked about the Ross over the SMLE was that if you fired 5 rounds rapid from a Ross you could warm your hands on the barrel.
Click to expand...

Going to have to declare ' Hooey ' on that one. No offense to you or the Vet of course. Sometimes Vet's are a font of knowledge; sometimes they are not, just stating the obvious... a wide variety of men served in both WW's. Sometimes they were just "repeating stuff they heard to be cool". This from my maternal Grandfather; he drove truck in WW2, apparently farmers were handy that way...he had no crazy stories. But he was aware of the habit of them being oft retold.,
Ross's were full wood with a far heavier bbl than the LE IMO. LE bbl would get hot 1st I'd surmise.
 
tokguy said:
Going to have to declare ' Hooey ' on that one. No offense to you or the Vet of course. Sometimes Vet's are a font of knowledge; sometimes they are not, just stating the obvious... a wide variety of men served in both WW's. Sometimes they were just "repeating stuff they heard to be cool". This from my maternal Grandfather; he drove truck in WW2, apparently farmers were handy that way...he had no crazy stories. But he was aware of the habit of them being oft retold.,
Ross's were full wood with a far heavier bbl than the LE IMO. LE bbl would get hot 1st I'd surmise.
Click to expand...

If you examine a Ross MkIII carefully you will notice that the foreward part of the barrel is exposed steel on the top vs the SMLE which is covered in wood top and bottom full length.
Now try an experiment by firing same amount rounds through both and feel which arm is hotter to the touch same distance from muzzle. Hotter not hooey.
 
tokguy said:
Going to have to declare ' Hooey ' on that one. No offense to you or the Vet of course. Sometimes Vet's are a font of knowledge; sometimes they are not, just stating the obvious... a wide variety of men served in both WW's. Sometimes they were just "repeating stuff they heard to be cool". This from my maternal Grandfather; he drove truck in WW2, apparently farmers were handy that way...he had no crazy stories. But he was aware of the habit of them being oft retold.,
Ross's were full wood with a far heavier bbl than the LE IMO. LE bbl would get hot 1st I'd surmise.
Click to expand...

Some examples: When I was younger, I knew TWO Canadian WW2 vets who swore they cleared rooms by throwing loaded STEN guns into the rooms, the mags emptied whiel the guns spun, many dead Germans ensued. Except it's proven impossible. Does that diminish their service? Not a bit. But even vets told tall tales or mis-remembered things.

Another vet I knew SWORE his unit in Korea were all equipped with Thompson M1A1 SMG's with "doubled-up" recoil springs to improve reliability. Definitely BS, but he was still a great guy who served in Korea valiantly.
 
My point is the claim was made "Rosses were full wood" Not! Story is very plausible about warming hands on warm barrel. Please explain how this is a "crazy story".
Sten story definitely a myth.
 
Ax.338 said:
I have not watched the C&Rsenal's video since it first came out, and will have to watch it again when I get some spare time.

I do remember, that although quite good, it did have some mistakes and misinformation. So should not taken entirely as gospel.
Click to expand...

If you get around to watching it I'd like to know what you think they got wrong, or missed. In the end they speak pretty highly of the rifle with the kinks worked out.
 
green said:
My point is the claim was made "Rosses were full wood" Not! Story is very plausible about warming hands on warm barrel. Please explain how this is a "crazy story".
Sten story definitely a myth.
Click to expand...

As someone who had the pleasure of using a Sten on occasion this run on story is BS. They had an open bolt and could easily slam fire if dropped and occasionally under the wrong circumstances you could get a run on, much like the SKS, but to say you could just throw one into a room and have it spin around and empty the mag is BS. It may have happened once or twice by accident but I certainly wouldn't want to bet my life on it. Grenades were much more effective for this. Now I liked the Sten and found it very easy to shoot well but they certainly had their quirks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom