Comparing the Ross rifle

ninepointer

ninepointer

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
45   0   0
Location
Central Ontario
The history books usually say that the WW1 Ross was an accurate rifle built to tight tolerances, but it could not stand repeated rapid firing and was prone to jamming and blowbacks.

I am wondering how well our modern sporting actions would stand up to WW1 field conditions. If Model 70s, 700s, 77s, A-bolts, etc. had gone to war, would they too be written off as bad rifles? Just how bad or good was the Ross?

Ninepointer
 
The principal problem with the Ross was the tight chambering. The Lee would accept anything that looked like a .303 round in any condition, while the Ross would not. Also, you don't have all that much leverage in extracting a round. From what I have read, Canadian soldiers in the trenches resorted to using the ammo boot to open the action. No wonder they usualy found a SMLE as quickly as possible.

As a Sniper weapon, it was a winner, but then snipers don't engage in rapid fire. Contrary to some folks belief, a straight pull is MORE tiring to operate than a turn bolt. Seems like the only winner here was Ross, who sold the factory and moved to Florida!

Oh yeah, there was that little part (bolt stop?)that would become burred when operating the rifle, causing jams. They redesigned the part, which cured that, but by then it was too damm late to save the rifle's reputation.
Still, I will keep the two Ross rifles I have.
 
There is a Darwinian component to the blowback reports. No doubt happened, but the rifle has to be set up for it to occur, and as far as my experimentation tells me, some brute force would be necessary. Easier to fire a Lee Enfield without its bolthead, which has happened, and that's Darwin in action as well. As far as using a separate rotating bolthead operated by a sleeve goes, the many modern semi-auto, slide and lever action rifles use a similar system, including the AR series, Remingtons and Brownings.
There were manufacturing, metallurgical and ammunition compatibility problems with some Mk.III rifles. They were rushed into production without the design and production being mature. There were even ammunition compatibility problems with SMLEs early in WWI; some really poor ammunition was made during a period when supply hadn't caught up with demand. The Colt-Browning machine guns used by the CEF also had to have their cartridges carefully inspected before they were loaded into the belts.
The politics on both sides of the issue were extreme, both pro and anti Ross.
 
The principal problem with the Ross was the tight chambering. The Lee would accept anything that looked like a .303 round in any condition, while the Ross would not. Also, you don't have all that much leverage in extracting a round. From what I have read, Canadian soldiers in the trenches resorted to using the ammo boot to open the action. No wonder they usualy found a SMLE as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

That's quite the whole story. When Ross started building the rifle for the military, the Brits sent us faulty tecnitical diagrams for the .303 cartridge. Therefore, the chamber ended up being smaller than the enfield, and the Canadian ammunition was made with this info as well. So, as long as Canadians at the front could get Cdn ammo, the rifle work well. The problem was, since most Cdn units were attached to British formaitions, after a while, all the ammo they could get was British made..... and that's when the problems started.
 
IIRC the Cdn Rangers did a trial of the Ruger 77 as a potential replacement for the No4 and it was found wanting.This is the closest trial of a current sporter on active service I can recall. The current commercial rifles may have fared poorly on the Western Front.
 
There was contact with Ruger about the 77 Mk.II stainless. I do not know if there was actually a trial. Ruger was prepared to have the stocks made with the Rangers' emblem moulded into the butt panels. I was told that the factor which ended the consideration of the Ruger was that the minimum order for a purpose built rifle was 5 000 units, far more than were needed. As far as servicablity is concerned, the standard rear sight is flimsy, and the stock could be broken at the wrist without too much trouble.
 
I should think that the Model 70 and Ruger M77MkII are basically hybrid Mauser 98's, so the action design is likely sufficient. The problem is that as a sporter, they would be set up all wrong and probably have too tight tolerances at hte bolt and chamber to handle trench debris. There's a reason the military Mauser's bolt is left a little loosey goosey.

Now, build a Ruger 77MkII with a handguard and a heavy military sight like the K98k tang or the No.4 rifle Mk1 sight, lower the diameter of the bolt body by a few thou, beef up the stock wrist and slightly enlarge the chambers for use with milspec brass and you'd have something worth writing home about.
 
Sgt Striker said:
That's quite the whole story. When Ross started building the rifle for the military, the Brits sent us faulty tecnitical diagrams for the .303 cartridge. Therefore, the chamber ended up being smaller than the enfield, and the Canadian ammunition was made with this info as well. So, as long as Canadians at the front could get Cdn ammo, the rifle work well. The problem was, since most Cdn units were attached to British formaitions, after a while, all the ammo they could get was British made..... and that's when the problems started.
Click to expand...

Have to disagree:
The problem with the chambering was a Canadian one. The chamber dimentions were reduced from the British supplied ones because the min spec dimentions used were found to increase velocity.

All I can say is that Sam & his cronies should have been court marshalled.

This information is found in "A Question of Confidence - The Ross Rifle in the Trenches", by Col. A.F. Duguid, ~available from Service Publications (servicepub.com) This was part of the 1938 Official History of the CEF.

D
 
i think the majority of the modern rifles not designed for battle (Abolt, ect) would be written off as bad rifles.. especially in trench warfare.
 
Interesting comments guys, thanks.:)

Now let me turn this around. Let's pretend that the Ross had not been a military rifle, but rather had always been built and marketed in a sporting rifle configuration. Would the Ross be considered to be of the same quality, lesser quality or better quality as other "great" bolt action sporters?

Ninepointer
 
Ross sporting rifles were innovative, and finely made. If you examine an original Ross sporter in fine condition, the quality is obvious. At that time, what other high pressure smokeless powder bolt action sporting rifles were available? Mauser, Mannnlicher and custom Springfield sporters, Newton rifles. The .280 Ross was revolutionary, its ballistics being similar to the 7mm Rem. Mag. The .303 cartridge was a modern round at the time.
 
There were lawsuits resulting from blown bolts in 1910 pattern rifles. There were also blown up Springfield rifles prior to the First War; the rifles were not from the hurry up production period in 1917. To have a Ross blow its bolt, you have to set up the action to do so, and it takes effort. You have to work at it. See if you can incorrectly assemble a 1910 bolt, and install it in a rifle without using brute force. I haven't been able to, in several different rifles. The Springfields burst at random, without the shooter having to go out of his way to make it happen.
 
Concerning blown 1903 Springers, here is an interesting read:
http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

To sum it up, testing by General Hatcher (of Hatcher's Notebook and "Hatcher Hole" fame), determined that the highest rate of failures occurred among the receivers manufactured in 1904 (8.71 failures per 100,000 rifles), followed by 1911 (8.53/100,000), 1916 (7.53/100,000), then 1907 (7.26/100,000). The belief that the problem with brittle receivers was caused by inexperienced workers overheating the receivers in 1917 is not supported by the data. Only one of the 11 receivers that failed in 1917 was made in that year.

There were no failures observed in rifles made during these five years: (1908-10, 1912, 1915).

It's also strongly argued that the receiver failures were mostly a function of poorly made soft brass cartridges issued during the urgency of WW1.
 
The early receiver failures may well have been precipitated by ammunition failures as well. Metallurgy of both rifle steel and cartridge brass was not as well understood as it is now, nor was alloy control and manufacture as precise. The 98 Mauser was designed with a superior gas handling system, which was degraded in the Springfield adaptation. A case failure in a rifle with second rate gas handling characteristics is going to be serious.
I have not heard of an unfortunate incident in a Ross resulting from a case failure, and have no knowledge of how well a Ross handles a casehead failure.
 
I don't know how much this adds to the argument, but W. H. McBride in his book of experiences in WWI ("A Rifleman Went to War") makes mention of the problems with the Ross that lead to its subsequent replacement with the SMLE. He mentions the jamming, but specifically notes that he knew of no examples of blown bolts. Hearsay for sure, but "quality" hearsay.

That the Ross bolt can be assembled incorrectly is a failing (for you can be sure that some bonehead will force it together and then blame the gun when calamity strikes), but most agree that if correctly assembled the bolt poses no threat of blowing. Still, the myth persists that the Ross is dangerous, and it will never die despite evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
You are quite correct - that the bolt CAN be incorrectly assembled guarantees that it will be. This is a design failure. The one good thing about the myth that the Ross is inherently dangerous has had one benefit - it has kept prices down, although they have certainly been rising the last while. If you consider that the .280 Ross and the Newton were contemporaries, the Ross is underappreciated in this country, while the Newton is a desirable classic in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom