Canada’s Ross rifle more peril than protection for First World War soldiers

An inferior weapon thrust upon enlisted men for political reason.
Much like the M16 debacle in Vietnam .

The Ross rifle should be considered a source of national shame IMHO.
Our troops were drafted to fight a war under inept foreign generalship.
Furthermore the war didn't affect Canada in any way and those that perished in it died in vain.
To add insult to injury the rifle they were issued was a poor design selected only as a political favor.


It is too bad that your the lack of knowledge of Military Firearms is exceeded only by a lack of knowledge of Historical events at the time quoted.

As SMELLIE pointed out, Canada could not obtain a modern rifle to arm their Military. Winchester 95 as suggested ---please be serious.

The Ross rifle was adopted and the Canadian ammunition was made to specifications as supplied by the British drawings. The Canadians produced very high quality ammunition, and when this Canadian Ammunition was shipped to England, it was scooped up by the British and used for their machine guns. The Canadian front line troops were issued .303 ammunition made by Birmingham Iron and Metals, specifically Lots B14 and B15. This ammunition was CONDEMNED as UNSUITABLE by the British, but the BRITISH issued it to the Canadians. About 15% of this ammunition was oversized, and it jammed in not only the Ross but in the SMLE rifles as well. Because of this debacle, the POLITICIANS decided to blame the Ross rifle and not put the blame where it really should have been.

A similar situation occurred during WWII in Hong Kong. An inept British General failed to occupy and secure the high ground because he believed the Japanese could not possibly get there. The Japanese did, and the Canadians were blamed for the downfall of Hong Kong, even though they were ordered to surrender. After all, the General was of "good British stock" and the Family should not be embarrassed so Canadian soldiers suffered to preserve his reputation.

Weapons are designed for a certain purpose and certain specifications are set up to insure that the weapons work as designed. In the case of the M-16, Eugene Stone designed the AR-15 and M-16 rifle to use ammunition loaded with IMR-4198 rifle powder. This powder is a stick type and has certain burning characteristics. Someone decided that cheaper ammunition could be made if Ball type powder were used. This powder used a high Calcium Carbonate composition to supposedly reduce muzzle flash when fired. However, the M-16 system does not use a piston type of operation for cycling the action, but uses a gas tube that takes gas directly from the propellant gas and directs it through this gas tube onto the bolt carrier. The were two problems here. First is that U.S. Troops were told that cleaning was minimal or not necessary, and second, the gas tube plugged up when using Ball type powder in the ammunition. There were pictures of U.S. Troops carrying cleaning rods taped to the fore-end of their rifles while in combat.
 
Actually the Winchester 95 was available chambered in 303 British.
That rifle was also used by the Russians during WW1 chambered in 7.62x 54r to supplement stocks of mosin nagants
So there were options available to negate fielding a rifle that didn't propel the bolt into the users eye socket and that would constantly jam shut in field conditions
Hughes and Ross should have been publicly hung rather than both profiting handsomely

Owning a Russian Winchester 95, I don't really think it would have been any more successful than the Ross. Cool sporting rifle but not up to military service. I suspect if Russia had had a free press you'd have heard as much about the Winchesters as we do the Ross.
 
Owning a Russian Winchester 95, I don't really think it would have been any more successful than the Ross. Cool sporting rifle but not up to military service. I suspect if Russia had had a free press you'd have heard as much about the Winchesters as we do the Ross.

The Winchester 95's were highly revered by the czarist forces.
The Ross was definitely not up to military service.
 
Last edited:
.The choice, therefore, was between the Ross and the MAUSER..... which was not available in .303 calibre.

Just keeping things straight.......

Actually, Mausers were available in .303... Mauser built an intermediate length action with a slant magazine for John Rigby & Co. specifically for the .303 well before the war. If some nation had requested a military rifle built up on the same action, I'm sure the Mauser Werke would have obliged. Business is business after all.

There is also an illustration in Mauser Bolt Rifles by Ludwig Olsen of a CZ mauser with a drop magazine chambered for .303. This was a post WWI development, obvioiusly.
 
MANY of the Ross's problems came directly from the SSAC: Standing Small Arms Committee, which was a Canadian Government committee staffed by "experts". It was endless nitpicking and criticism on the part of the SSAC which resulted in most of the EIGHTY-TWO catalogued changes to the specification of the Ross Rifle Mark II.

The Mark III was the (new) standard model at the outbreak of the War, only small numbers having been delivered prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe. These first-delivery Mark III Rosses may be identified by their anomalous serials on the right side of the Butt. The rifle shown in the large colour photo at the beginning of this thread has such a serial number. It is not at ALL like the numbers found on regular-production Mark III rifles. I have a similar serial number on one of my own rifles, which is marked A16XX and lacks the regular "roundel" and standard Ross 123/1914 AA type of serial. It is a rifle marked to 16 Battalion which served in Canada and Bermuda before going to England and then to France and finally to Chile with our superdreadnought HMS CANADA. Mark III rifles were manufactured in Quebec and delivered directly to the troops at Valcartier, many of whom had received their first training on the Mark II rifles.

Not generally known is the fact that the Ross Rifle Mark III was the choice of TWO Dominions in the Great War. Newfoundland, which had NO military prior to the outbreak of the War, swiftly raised a tiny Army which was trained at Quidi Vidi on Lee-Metfords from the HMS BRITON (HMS CALYPSO prior to 1905). I am happy to be able to state that I also have a Mark II Lee-Metford from the CALYPSO; her wreck was 500 yards from my house when I lived in Newfoundland. The DOMINION OF NEWFOUNDLAND decided that they wanted the most accurate rifle in the world for their troops. A huge flag was put up in the main window of Ayres' department store in St. John's and at the bottom of the flag rested a brand-new Mark III Ross Rifle, lying upon a bed of crushed red velvet. A sign stated that this was the most accurate rifle in the world and that it had been selected to arm the Newfoundland Contingent. It was also mentioned that the rifles cost $28 each and that CONTRIBUTIONS from the Public for the purchase of these rifles would be taken inside the store. Newfoundland's ordered 500 Ross Mark III rifles were made and shipped from the factory, but did not arrive in St. John's before the SS FLORIZEL had sailed with the First Contingent. The Rosses followed the "Blue Puttees" to England on the next available ship..... where they were seized by the British Government and "put into storage". They have not been seen since and there is today no confirmed specimen of a Newfoundland Ross Rifle.

The Canadian Artillery requested a Ross Rifle which was shorter than the standard Mark III and shaped to fit the brackets on the limbers of the British-built guns. The Company built a specimen rifle fitted with a 26-inch barrel. The Standing Small Arms Committee rejected the entire idea.

I have written SEVERAL times in this Forum regarding ACTUAL combat experience with the Ross, as told to me by men who actually USED it. My own Grandfather was a Sniper with 54 Battalion ("The Kootenay Regiment" until there were no more British Columbians to refill its ranks again, then it became the "New Brunswick" battalion: rough fighting). He had the greatest respect for the Ross and carried both rifles, the SMLE and the Ross, until the end of the War. He said the SMLE was useful for "quick work" but the Ross was better for deliberate long-range shooting. The only shot he ever talked about was a night shot in total darkness, firing at the flash of a German sniper's rifle. The range was about 400 yards. There was no more enemy sniping in 54th's sector of the Front for some time afterwards.

I knew TWO men who took part in the horrific fighting in the St. Julien sector of Second Ypres when Fritz put the gas through on 23 April, 1915. "A" Company of 8th Battalion ("Little Black Devils": Royal Winnipeg Rifles) went up THROUGH the gas when the French Colonial troops broke. A single Company faced THREE German DIVISIONS in what likely was the worst single pure rifle-to-rifle engagement ever fought. L/Cpl Robert Courtice told me that they fired their Rosses until they were TOO HOT TO TOUCH, then replaced them with a cold rifle from a casualty, fired that one until it, also, could no longer be touched, then went back to their original rifles, now cooled. Private Alex McBain, who was with him that day, confirmed the story in a separate interview. They fired all of their own ammunition and scavenged piles more from the massive number of casualties. Each of those men fired AT LEAST 150 rounds that day and likely the number was considerably higher; both men refused to give me an exact estimate. I asked Cpl. Courtice at what ranges they were firing and all he did was hang his head and shake it, whispering "Too close to miss....". The interviews were 56 years after the fight but both men had extremely clear memories of the fight, Pte. McBain because it was his only big battle: he was wounded during the fight and returned home. Cpl. Courtice was blown up by a 90-pounder which dropped into his trench bay a couple of night before the big assault at Givenchy, only a couple of weeks later. He was the only survivor of the 12 men in the bay. When I knew him, he still had chunks of steel working their way out of his face.... and he had a matchbox of steel chunks which had worked their way out of his head, arms and brain over the years. Both men defended the Ross Rifle, Pte. McBain in MOST vehement fashion ("It's ALL LIES!! There was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE GOD-DAMNED ROSS RIFLE!!!")

If I had to take an EXPERT opinion from the men I have known who used the Ross in combat, it would have to be that of Captain George Dibblee, DCM (Regina Trench). Capt. Dibblee was a cowboy before the War, driving 700 head of cattle into a corral where the Husky Tower now stands in Calgary. He quit being a cowboy and took a job as a Guide for the North-West Mounted Police in 1907 or 1908. He joined the 5th Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles in 1914 as a Private soldier and worked his way up to Captain, which rank he held when he was the second man to enter Cambrai in 1918 ("The bridge across the Canal was blown and there weren't enough pontoons to cross all the way, so they put up a plank. The plank broke when I was halfway across and so my Sergeant fished me out!"). "The Ross Rifle," said Capt. Dibblee, "was UNPOPULAR due to its length and weight; you couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung. ..... We had NO troubles with the Ross in our Regiment, but we kept our equipment CLEAN, not like some outfits that never cleaned their equipment."

I think Capt. Dibblee's opinion sums things up for me rather well.

Were I 50 years younger and still in the military, would I want THE MOST ACCURATE RIFLE EVER BUILT? Even if I had to clean it? Damned right!

That's why I have close to 20 of them on my racks.

BTW the Ross may not have been good enough.... but it certainly served the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines Light Infantry well enough.... through BOTH WORLD WARS. And it served well in Latvia and Estonia as well. So where are they all? Russia is sitting on better than HALF of the total production. They only use them when it is time to clear OUR teams off the international ranges.....
 
MANY of the Ross's problems came directly from the SSAC: Standing Small Arms Committee, which was a Canadian Government committee staffed by "experts". It was endless nitpicking and criticism on the part of the SSAC which resulted in most of the EIGHTY-TWO catalogued changes to the specification of the Ross Rifle Mark II.

The Mark III was the (new) standard model at the outbreak of the War, only small numbers having been delivered prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Europe. These first-delivery Mark III Rosses may be identified by their anomalous serials on the right side of the Butt. The rifle shown in the large colour photo at the beginning of this thread has such a serial number. It is not at ALL like the numbers found on regular-production Mark III rifles. I have a similar serial number on one of my own rifles, which is marked A16XX and lacks the regular "roundel" and standard Ross 123/1914 AA type of serial. It is a rifle marked to 16 Battalion which served in Canada and Bermuda before going to England and then to France and finally to Chile with our superdreadnought HMS CANADA. Mark III rifles were manufactured in Quebec and delivered directly to the troops at Valcartier, many of whom had received their first training on the Mark II rifles.

Not generally known is the fact that the Ross Rifle Mark III was the choice of TWO Dominions in the Great War. Newfoundland, which had NO military prior to the outbreak of the War, swiftly raised a tiny Army which was trained at Quidi Vidi on Lee-Metfords from the HMS BRITON (HMS CALYPSO prior to 1905). I am happy to be able to state that I also have a Mark II Lee-Metford from the CALYPSO; her wreck was 500 yards from my house when I lived in Newfoundland. The DOMINION OF NEWFOUNDLAND decided that they wanted the most accurate rifle in the world for their troops. A huge flag was put up in the main window of Ayres' department store in St. John's and at the bottom of the flag rested a brand-new Mark III Ross Rifle, lying upon a bed of crushed red velvet. A sign stated that this was the most accurate rifle in the world and that it had been selected to arm the Newfoundland Contingent. It was also mentioned that the rifles cost $28 each and that CONTRIBUTIONS from the Public for the purchase of these rifles would be taken inside the store. Newfoundland's ordered 500 Ross Mark III rifles were made and shipped from the factory, but did not arrive in St. John's before the SS FLORIZEL had sailed with the First Contingent. The Rosses followed the "Blue Puttees" to England on the next available ship..... where they were seized by the British Government and "put into storage". They have not been seen since and there is today no confirmed specimen of a Newfoundland Ross Rifle.

The Canadian Artillery requested a Ross Rifle which was shorter than the standard Mark III and shaped to fit the brackets on the limbers of the British-built guns. The Company built a specimen rifle fitted with a 26-inch barrel. The Standing Small Arms Committee rejected the entire idea.

I have written SEVERAL times in this Forum regarding ACTUAL combat experience with the Ross, as told to me by men who actually USED it. My own Grandfather was a Sniper with 54 Battalion ("The Kootenay Regiment" until there were no more British Columbians to refill its ranks again, then it became the "New Brunswick" battalion: rough fighting). He had the greatest respect for the Ross and carried both rifles, the SMLE and the Ross, until the end of the War. He said the SMLE was useful for "quick work" but the Ross was better for deliberate long-range shooting. The only shot he ever talked about was a night shot in total darkness, firing at the flash of a German sniper's rifle. The range was about 400 yards. There was no more enemy sniping in 54th's sector of the Front for some time afterwards.

I knew TWO men who took part in the horrific fighting in the St. Julien sector of Second Ypres when Fritz put the gas through on 23 April, 1915. "A" Company of 8th Battalion ("Little Black Devils": Royal Winnipeg Rifles) went up THROUGH the gas when the French Colonial troops broke. A single Company faced THREE German DIVISIONS in what likely was the worst single pure rifle-to-rifle engagement ever fought. L/Cpl Robert Courtice told me that they fired their Rosses until they were TOO HOT TO TOUCH, then replaced them with a cold rifle from a casualty, fired that one until it, also, could no longer be touched, then went back to their original rifles, now cooled. Private Alex McBain, who was with him that day, confirmed the story in a separate interview. They fired all of their own ammunition and scavenged piles more from the massive number of casualties. Each of those men fired AT LEAST 150 rounds that day and likely the number was considerably higher; both men refused to give me an exact estimate. I asked Cpl. Courtice at what ranges they were firing and all he did was hang his head and shake it, whispering "Too close to miss....". The interviews were 56 years after the fight but both men had extremely clear memories of the fight, Pte. McBain because it was his only big battle: he was wounded during the fight and returned home. Cpl. Courtice was blown up by a 90-pounder which dropped into his trench bay a couple of night before the big assault at Givenchy, only a couple of weeks later. He was the only survivor of the 12 men in the bay. When I knew him, he still had chunks of steel working their way out of his face.... and he had a matchbox of steel chunks which had worked their way out of his head, arms and brain over the years. Both men defended the Ross Rifle, Pte. McBain in MOST vehement fashion ("It's ALL LIES!! There was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE GOD-DAMNED ROSS RIFLE!!!")

If I had to take an EXPERT opinion from the men I have known who used the Ross in combat, it would have to be that of Captain George Dibblee, DCM (Regina Trench). Capt. Dibblee was a cowboy before the War, driving 700 head of cattle into a corral where the Husky Tower now stands in Calgary. He quit being a cowboy and took a job as a Guide for the North-West Mounted Police in 1907 or 1908. He joined the 5th Battalion, Canadian Mounted Rifles in 1914 as a Private soldier and worked his way up to Captain, which rank he held when he was the second man to enter Cambrai in 1918 ("The bridge across the Canal was blown and there weren't enough pontoons to cross all the way, so they put up a plank. The plank broke when I was halfway across and so my Sergeant fished me out!"). "The Ross Rifle," said Capt. Dibblee, "was UNPOPULAR due to its length and weight; you couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung. ..... We had NO troubles with the Ross in our Regiment, but we kept our equipment CLEAN, not like some outfits that never cleaned their equipment."

I think Capt. Dibblee's opinion sums things up for me rather well.

Were I 50 years younger and still in the military, would I want THE MOST ACCURATE RIFLE EVER BUILT? Even if I had to clean it? Damned right!

That's why I have close to 20 of them on my racks.

BTW the Ross may not have been good enough.... but it certainly served the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines Light Infantry well enough.... through BOTH WORLD WARS. And it served well in Latvia and Estonia as well. So where are they all? Russia is sitting on better than HALF of the total production. They only use them when it is time to clear OUR teams off the international ranges.....
Well if you have 20 of these rifles your opinion is already biased.
The rifle was and is an abject failure as an infantry weapon.
It has no value other than acting as legacy to political corruption and mismanagement.
 
Last edited:
I ALSO have 20 Short, Magazine Lee-Enfields and just about the same number of MAUSERS.

Rather than sniping at ME and sneering about something you know NOTHING about, why don't you learn how to load a Ross Rifle safely, then go to the range and TRY IT OUT?

If you are ever in this neck of the woods, drop by and we'll go to the range.... and you WILL get a lesson.

After that, you MIGHT show a little RESPECT.
 
I ALSO have 20 Short, Magazine Lee-Enfields and just about the same number of MAUSERS.

Rather than sniping at ME and sneering about something you know NOTHING about, why don't you learn how to load a Ross Rifle safely, then go to the range and TRY IT OUT?

If you are ever in this neck of the woods, drop by and we'll go to the range.... and you WILL get a lesson.

After that, you MIGHT show a little RESPECT.
I'll pass on your offer as I wouldn't want a poorly designed rifle bolt propelled into my skull.
 
Well if you have 20 of these rifles your opinion is already biased.
The rifle was and is an abject failure as an infantry weapon.
It has no value other than acting as legacy to political corruption and mismanagement.

Mr. Pine, That looks like a quote from a man who has watched a T.V. program- and believed it. You obviously think that some misinformation propagated by some morons (who fail to take the term "research" seriously) makes you an expert. Well your an idiot and you have just demonstrated that fact to a very large number of very knowledgeable collectors.

As a very good friend of mine has said-"gawd but some mothers let the wrong ones live!"
Janice.
 
Hughes and Ross should have both been hanged.
There were riots in Montreal over the draft
The entire war was a waste of Canada's time, resources and men.

Justin is that you? I know that the Quebecois were quite disturbed that they had to answer the call to arms of a country that many of them hate. Of course many answered and the rest is history.The sacrifice shown by so many is what the history of our country is based on.There is nothing wrong with a Ross as long as it has been properly assembled and maintained.Your opinions are yours, and ours are ours.
 
Mr. Pine, That looks like a quote from a man who has watched a T.V. program- and believed it. You obviously think that some misinformation propagated by some morons (who fail to take the term "research" seriously) makes you an expert. Well your an idiot and you have just demonstrated that fact to a very large number of very knowledgeable collectors.

As a very good friend of mine has said-"gawd but some mothers let the wrong ones live!"
Janice.
It takes only basic engineering skills to determine that it is possible to assemble the Ross bolt incorrectly.
 
Which is precisely WHY it was only to be disassembled/assembled by the ARMOURER.

It was idiot amateur Boy Engineers who started the whole thing about the "dangerous" Ross.
 
During WW1 Canadian troops were not drafted and fought under Canadian Generals.

The M-16 was a hurried adoption as it was all ready in production for the US Air force who issued it to their airfield guards.

Your lack of knowledge is showing. There was a draft in Canada and for most of the war Canadians fought under British generals. Vimy Ridge, April, 1917 was the first engagement where the entire Canadian Corps was combined and fought under Canadian Arthur Currie, one of if not THE best allied general of WW1.
 
Which is precisely WHY it was only to be disassembled/assembled by the ARMOURER.

It was idiot amateur Boy Engineers who started the whole thing about the "dangerous" Ross.
More than likely it was comrades of the fellow dead in a trench with the bolt of his service rifle impaled into his skull that started the whole "dangerous" Ross discussions.
The discussions of it being unsuitable for trench warfare probably originated from the fellows trying to kick the bolt open while under enemy fire.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Pine, That looks like a quote from a man who has watched a T.V. program- and believed it. You obviously think that some misinformation propagated by some morons (who fail to take the term "research" seriously) makes you an expert. Well your an idiot and you have just demonstrated that fact to a very large number of very knowledgeable collectors.

As a very good friend of mine has said-"gawd but some mothers let the wrong ones live!"
Janice.

I think you're being far too kind to Mr. Pine.

BTW, thank you Smellie for yet more very interesting history and background...I do truly appreciate having you on the forum.
 
I had a visit last night from a good friend. We discuss history a lot because he has an interest in it and I cannot understand his native language (mathematics: he holds a PhD derived from his book on the meaning of Zero).

The Ross Rifle topic came up because he had seen the same TV show.

I asked him what size his feet were.

"Size 12" he replied.

"I have a nice pair of Size 10 shoes you can have," I said.

"That simple?"

"That simple."

And yes, I have repaired Rosses which have had shocking damage. Get everything aligned again and they work fine. Likely the Mark III Ross is the strongest bolt rifle action ever built. And if you know anything about Engineering, if you look at it closely you will see that it is essentially a self-cleaning action as well.
 
The Ross rifle should be considered a source of national shame IMHO.
Our troops were drafted to fight a war under inept foreign generalship.
Furthermore the war didn't affect Canada in any way and those that perished in it died in vain.
To add insult to injury the rifle they were issued was a poor design selected only as a political favor.

...take it back! Them's fightin' words!
 
Back
Top Bottom