CTV News-100 years ago, Ross rifle failed Canadian First World War Soldiers

http://www.cefresearch.ca/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=805&start=0

^ link containing some of the memoirs of a Sgt.Frank Iriam scout with 8th battalion CEF during 2nd Ypres... In his own words "Now we have been told by lots and lots of people who were not there, and did not happen to have lived through it that the ROSS rifle was a failure as a military arm, and that 1st division was handicapped by being armed with it , and lots of men lost their lives through its jamming in critical places ect. and so on .
Even men who did live through that fight but happened to hail from merrie england will tell you solemnly it was no good and never was.
I cannot see it that way at all. if even a small fraction of the attention, time and money and labor of experts, had been put on the ross , that has been spent on the enfield and springfield, we would now have a rifle that canada might be proud of.
the 8th DURHAMS had short lee enfields and they got into the gassed area early enough to suffer a bit from rust and corrosions. several of us tried to use enfields in that defence, but you had to pry under the handle with the blade of a bayonet to turn the bolt each time and if you succeeded in turning the bolt up, it was then another task to drive it back and then ahead again and in most cases it could not be done. for the bolt seized fast in its channel from corrosion and would not reapeat even after being driven and forced a couple of times back and forward. oil might have helped but there were no oil wells on our part of the front then. "

If anyone gets a chance pick up the book his son wrote called IN THE TRENCHES 1914-1918 By Glenn R. Iriam.
 
Last edited:
^ I really want that book.

One of the changes that did help was the larger bolt stop. This prevented the rear locking lug being broken by ramming it back and forth roughly. Actual trained armorers and not trying to heat treat bolts in the field would have helped as well.

It's too bad that Col. Sam Hughes couldn't get it through his head that a 26" barrel would have been beneficial as well. Basically the Ross in all of its forms was a prototype rifle fielded in the worst conditions ever witnessed on a battlefield up to that point and expected to work flawlessly without proper development. If the war hadn't come for another 10 years I think the outcome would have changed. Now the .280 cartridge on the other hand, I don't think it would ever have made widespread military use. Too heavy a cartridge.
 
This article just tells me that even a 100 years ago Canada couldn't get its #### together when it comes to building it's own rifle and ammo... Pity.
 
Calum said:
This article just tells me that even a 100 years ago Canada couldn't get its #### together when it comes to building it's own rifle and ammo... Pity.
Click to expand...

Not so much that Canada couldn't, I don't think. You all have the people. John Garand was born in Canada, though he moved to the States when he was a kid.

Regards,

Josh
 
CGS said:
Good article.

The Royal Newfoundland Regiment was supposed to have been issued with Ross rifles before they went overseas, but due to late delivery, they were issued the Lee Enfield instead. So, instead of being wiped out due to faulty weapons, they were wiped out by British incompetence instead.
Click to expand...

Don't think that was ever the plan. Newfoundland was a separate colony from Canada and supplied very little of their own gear using British kit entirely as far as I know. In fact the Royal Newfoundland Regiment never even fought as part of the Canadian Corps.
 
Mike Webb said:
Don't think that was ever the plan. Newfoundland was a separate colony from Canada and supplied very little of their own gear using British kit entirely as far as I know. In fact the Royal Newfoundland Regiment never even fought as part of the Canadian Corps.
Click to expand...

Your mostly right.

All the kit was actually purchased for the regiment through donations from business owners, the Nfld government, and groups like the Church Lads Brigade. Even the churches contributed. The rifles were to have been purchased from Ross in Quebec, but delivery was delayed, so the regiment was equipped with LE rifles by the British ( I believe when they arrived there.) Least the Brits could do.

The regiment did not fight as part of the Canadian Corp, but under British command. That's a pity actually. The British officers were mostly incompetent fools, and didn't hesitate to use Commonwealth troops as cannon fodder in bad situations to spare their own troops. The Canadian commander on the other hand appears to have had his sh*t together and wasn't prone to taking unnecessary risks with his troops.
 
We had our share of "incompetent fools" as well. Many of those sent overseas as officers were sent home after performing badly. Currie was the exception and performed exceptionally well. Some say the best Commonwealth general by the end of the war and he hated needless casualties.
 
Calum said:
This article just tells me that even a 100 years ago Canada couldn't get its #### together when it comes to building it's own rifle and ammo... Pity.
Click to expand...

Calum- Did you miss the part about the British taking our ammo and giving us their reject ammo, which directly led to the failure of the Ross?

With our ammo...do you think it would have had the issues it did?
 
With decent ammunition problems with Rosses are nearly unheard-of.

The problems with British ammunition were bad enough that a new chamber specification for the SMLE was brought out about the mid-point of the War.

Checking just behind the rear-sights of a number of SMLEs can be an eye-opener. Just remember SC and LC: Small Cone and Large Cone.... and then guess which one might be bigger.

Mods to the Lee-Enfield were kept awfully quiet, while any problem with the Ross, real or imaginary, was trumpeted to the Moon.

A point to remember is that by the beginning of the War, Britain already had 35 years of design and development invested in the Lee system. The Ross, on the other hand, had made its debut only12 years previously.... and there had been so many alterations to the rifle at the insistence of the SSAC that quips were made that no two Ross Rifles were the same! The SSAC made no less than eighty-two changes to the basic 1905 specification.... in only half a dozen years.

A Short Ross Mark III with a 26-inch barrel WAS in fact produced by the Ross factory in prototype form. The SSAC wanted no part of it, despite the fact that it was REQUESTED specifically by the Canadian Artillery. There were MANY requests for a shorter Ross rifle, including from Sir Charles Ross himself; the Canadian Government nixed each and every one.
 
drm3m said:


Snipers of the 21st Battalion.





Click to expand...

These are interesting photographs. SMELLIE and I have had long discussions on many of the Ross rifles we have seen that appear to be "sporterized." Not all the rifles used for sniping had the telescopic sights mounted on them, and a great number were simply used with open sights as the distances between trenches was not that great.

Whey you look at the pictures, almost EVERY ONE of them has had the wood on the forestock cut back to just in front of the middle band. Maybe some of those "sporterized Ross rifles" were actually used in the trenches. It does make sense, as there would be a lot less of the barrel visible to the enemy without the tell tale wood on it.
.
 
I just reread Col. A. F. Duguid's "A Question of Confidence; the Ross Rifle in the Trenches". Duguid was Director of the Canadian Army Historical Section from the 20s to 40s, so he was well-placed to get the facts from those who were there in WWI; which he seems to have done. The whole story is there

The ammunition that was found sub-standard was coded "B", "N" and "G". "K" and "E" (Kynoch and Ely) were found suitable for use along with "DC" and "DA". "B" was Birmingham Metals and Munitions, "N" was National Arms & Ammunition Co., Birmingham and "G" was Greenwood & Bately, Leeds.

Anyone with cartridges dated 1914 or 15 by these companies would be well advised not to shoot it, but save it as a study should and perhaps one day will be made of the actual dimensions.

Sam Hughes and Sir Charles Ross or at least some of his employees resisted both the larger chamber dimension and the shorter barrel. Hughes saying he had ridden all over South Africa with a Long Lee Enfield and had no problems at all.

Duguid points out that the actual Standing Committee on Small Arms was abolished in late 1910 and the sub-committee that had dealt only with the Ross became the de-facto committee. One of the members of that committee later wrote that because the factory and Sam Hughes insisted on a tight dimension chamber, steps were taken unofficially to see that Dominion Arsenals produced ammunition .002" smaller than standard. Duguid similarly states that they passed only low-limit ammunition for use with the Ross MkIII.

Sir John French in a letter from France dated 19th June 1915 concerning the Ross says: "I gave instructions for assembly of a small Committee at my General Headquarters to test the (Ross) rifle with the various makes of ammunition in use, including ammunition of Canadian manufacture, of which a small supply was obtained from England for the purpose, none having been sent out to this country for use with the rifle." "I have expressed and acted on my opinion that so far as I can judge, the ammunition of British manufacture is not suitable for use with the Ross rifle."

So if correct, what that means is that Canadian made ammo suitable for the Ross was held in the UK by the Imperial authorities; this is after 1st Ypres and the first gas attack at St. Julien etc., so if Sir John French's information was correct, the Canadians went through those battles using British ammo. Apparently some was good and some was not, as per the later tests! Was the high quality Canadian ammo held back by chance or by deliberate choice of the authorities? Did they hold it back because they wanted to allocate it to aircraft, machine gunners or other special purposes? Did they want to discredit the Ross? Machine guns had few friends in the British Army of 1914, but many more in 1915, very few of them senior officers however. Aircraft were just beginning to be used with MGs so those explanations seem unlikely. They may have knowingly held back the high quality ammo for no particular purpose at all; just that typical storesman's habit of keeping the best kit back and issuing the worst first. Hard to say now.

So accident or deliberate, the result is well known, and certainly not a result undesirable to the British rifle makers or the Imperial authorities, who disliked having a non-standard weapon in service, particularly one that had regularly embarrassed the service pattern Lee Enfield in competition before WWI. As Duguid notes discussions had occurred before WWI between the Ross Rifle Co. and both Australia and New Zealand relative to supplying them with rifles, a situation that would not be favourably received in Birmingham. The Canadian representative of Birmingham Small Arms had openly stated before WWI that influence would be used to get the Ross Rifle Co. shut down. Despite all the hoopla about the Ross during the war, the New Zealand rifle team tried to use them at Bisley in 1919, but were told they could not as it was no longer a service rifle!

"All rifles rechambered (to .462") in England were marked "L.C." which distinguished them not only from the original Mk.III rifles with the .460" chamber, but also from those rechambered in Canada to .462" between 9th July and 26th August 1915, marked "N". Those received direct from the factory with the larger chamber .464", were marked "E".

As .462" was the British standard at the time, the "N" probably refers to "Normal" and the "E" probably refers to "Enlarged".

It should be noted that SMLEs were reamed to .464" as well from 1916 on; after the War the standard reverted to .462".
 
Last edited:
smellie said:
Checking just behind the rear-sights of a number of SMLEs can be an eye-opener. Just remember SC and LC: Small Cone and Large Cone.... and then guess which one might be bigger.
Click to expand...

SC on the barrel behind the rear sight means the Small Cone in the chamber has been increased .002-inch
What is LC?
 
5THBATT said:
SC on the barrel behind the rear sight means the Small Cone in the chamber has been increased .002-inch
What is LC?
Click to expand...

I've always understood "L.C." to mean "Large Cone" and "S.C." to be "Small Cone". But as for the actual dimensions each term indicated in the Ross and the SMLE...not so clear. The statement in Duguid is as I reproduced it above: .462" was "Large Cone" (.002" more than standard for the Ross). However .462 was the standard for the SMLE, so I believe the "Large Cone" on the SMLE was .464".

It could be that Duguid was mistaken and "Large Cone" in the Ross was also .464", which would make more sense since some or all of those in France & Britain were reamed to .464" later and that would have been marked on the rifle somehow you would expect.

The Ross Rifle Story reproduces a drawing and correspondence giving the Ross a .459" mouth diameter originally, and as being enlarged to .464" maximum and .463" minimum.
 
Last edited:
I'll get into the fray. A good article to start with. Well balanced. As to my opinion of the rifle, it is great. I love my 1910. But! and there is always a but. I would never have taken it into the mud of the front. One of the great features of the SMLE is the ease of cleaning. The rear locking lugs may have some draw backs but you can clean the receiver with a sharp stick and keep shooting. Not so the Ross. Jeeze! Just look at the fine locking lugs on the bolt head. The bolt is more complex (as in more crap to get dirty). So yes, a great rifle but not for the conditions. The rifle for the guys up front had to work in the existing conditions with the existing ammo. The Ross didn't.
 
I am guessing he's a member on here, just have not pinned him down yet, lol.
But the May 2014 Issue of 'Rifle; sporting arms journal' has an in depth article on the Ross by Terry Wieland.
Which by-the-way I really enjoyed.
It delved into the politics much more than expected.
I'd recommend reading it, anyhow
 
The Canadian Corps did not manage it's own logistics/supply system during WW1. It was supported through British logistics channels, so it was/is unrealistic to expect that "proper" Cdn spec ammo for the Ross would have been segregated in the Brit supply system and provided to Cdn troops through a special, dedicated small arms ammo supply channel. Basically troops were with whatever make of ammo came up through the system for better or for worse.

Mud was all pervasive in the trenches of WW1 and was true test for the durability and reliability of weapons. The Ross action would have been a real bear to keep free of mud and grime in the trenches in comparison to the Lee-Enfield.

My father was issued a Ross for training early in WW2 and thought that it was great on the range where proper care and cleanliness was possible. 45 yrs ago I knew a gentleman in Calgary who had served as a sniper in the trenches and spoke highly of the Ross rifle in this role.
 
RRCo. said:
I've always understood "L.C." to mean "Large Cone" and "S.C." to be "Small Cone".
Click to expand...

Still trying to work this out! all the publications on the SMLE i have (Not the Ross) refer to the "small cone" being increased by .002inch & S.C. being stamped on the barrel & i can find no reference to a "L.C."
I am thinking the term "small cone" on a SMLE refers to the actual part & not a type.

I have asked this question on another forum & this is one reply i have received.
Note "Modification of small cone" not modification of cone.

LoC entry 21209 (no date given but is correct for Oct 1918)
Rifles, short, MLE
Rifles, Magazine .303-inch
pattern 1914 fitted with the
model 1918 telescopic sight

Modification of small cone of cartridge chamber barrel.

It has been approved for future manufacture that the diameter of the small cone of the cartridge chamber of the barrels of the above mentioned rifles will be increased by .002-inch.
For the purpose of identification, these barrels will be marked "S.C." in the position stated here under-
Rifles, short, MLE. -On the barrel, behind the backsight.
Rifles, magazine, .303-inch pattern 1914, &c. - On that part of the barrel exposed in the nosecap opening.


 
If the Ross Rifle had been issued in the Boer War I guarantee you that it would have been held in extremely high regard due to its long range accuracy.

At the time that was how they expected warfare to be fought, long range battles with platoons of men (look at the Volley Sights and the graduations on the sights of some of the rifles of the time). The British even thought the Lee Enfield was junk and were planning on replacing it with a modified Mauser design, the P13 (as a result of the Lee Enfield during the Boer War).

Basically is the Ross rifle a good rifle for the trenches? No it isn't. Is there times when it would be exceptional to have? Definitely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom