did 1905 ross have same problem as the m-10 ross?

NB.nagantsniper

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
362   0   0
Location
northern nb
just asking .............did the earlier military OR the SPORTER ROSS RIFLES SUFFER SAME CONCERNS OR PROBLEMS AS THE m1910 used in battle ??:confused:

just curios way more info on the m10 as compared to the 1905 ross .
thank you.:)
 
Last edited:
Which problems?
Jamming in mud?
Bolt that could be misassembled on some rifles?
Minimum chamber specs?
Less than handy, particularly when bayonet was fixed?
Incorrect steel used in some bolts?
Bolts ruined by ill-advised attempts to recaseharden?

Keep in mind that the 1905 service rifle, the Mk. II, was never fully developed. It went through dozens of modifications.

The problems which affected the Mk. III service rifle didn't really apply to factory sporting rifles - with the exception of the Darwin situation with the 1910 bolt.
 
It is sometimes possible to assemble a Mk. III (1910) in such a manner that the bolt does not rotate to lock. If the rifle can be made to fire in this condition, the bolt assembly will blow back. Set up this way there is enough excess headspace that the rifle may misfire instead of discharging.
If the bolt does blow back, it will probably be stopped by the boltstop. The bolt sleeve may or may not strike the shooter, depending on how the rifle is being held. There will be brass fragments and burning powder released.
There may be other causes of blowbacks. A blown primer or case failure coupled with a defective pawl in the trigger mechanism could create a situation. A hangfire is also a possibility.
Not all 1910 actionned rifles can be assembled in this manner. I have experimented with the ones I have, and some can be and some cannot. If there is a rivet in the bolt sleeve, the rifle was modified during WW2 to prevent misassembly.
I did come across a bubba'd rifle in a store with the bolt assembled wrong. Quickly set it right.
This situation does not happen spontaneously. It requires manipulation to achieve it.
The bolt can be seen to rotate to lock during the last phase of closing. Easy to check.
 
x2 on that - of the bolts I've tried (3) one simply wouldn't do it, and two would, if you knew what you were doing and forced them. You have to be pretty persistant and forceful to get them to go together wrong in my experience.

If you're talking about the jamming in the mud, I've never heard about it in 1905's, but I don't think they were subjected to the same battlefield conditions either, were they?

Once I had stripped cleaned and inspected a ross and it passed my standards, I'd take either the 1905 or 1910 out to the bush any day. They aren't as durable as say, a No1 Mk3, but they aren't going to self destruct and fail under the circumstances we're going to put them in.
 
just asking .............did the earlier military OR the SPORTER ROSS RIFLES SUFFER SAME CONCERNS OR PROBLEMS AS THE m1910 used in battle ??:confused:

just curios way more info on the m10 as compared to the 1905 ross .
thank you.:)

The OP's question was asking about the 1905. He bought a Mk II 3 star recently. The answer is, no, the 1905 did not have the same problem. The bolt can't be misassembled like on the Mk III/1910. The action on a 1905 is very strong.

Now, I've been told there is an issue with the early rifles. The bores were smaller on some earlier rifles. Tighter bores. The ammo at the time was Mk VI .303, not the later higher powered Mk VII. I understand the rifles weren't proofed with Mk VII ammunition.
It would be worthwhile slugging the bore to ensure it wasn't way tighter than the bullets you're shooting through it. That could lead to unacceptably high pressures.
Using Mk VI pressure level handloaded ammo with cast lead bullets (after slugging the bore and selecting the bullet diameter based on that) would alleviate that concern.

It's a bit confusing and I am not completely sure on my facts, but a big Ross collector I know considers the Short Mk II rifles for collecting only.



There are many 3 Stars, but this one is mine. :)

CEF and US markings, US marked bayonet, Kerr NoBuckl sling.

ROSSMKII3STAR1-2.jpg


MkII3Star005Large-1.jpg
 
As far as the bolt misassembly is concerned, I have done this on several UNpinned Mark IIIs. On a commercial sporting Ross of Mark III pattern (Model 1910) it is quite easy to do this. Fortunately, it is also easy to reverse and it canNOT get out of alignment by itself. As Tiriaq has pointed out, it REQUIRES manipulation to get it out of whack.

The bolt head on a Mark III (1910) can only sit in 2 positions when the rifle action is partway open: about an inch ahead of the bolt sleeve, and very close to the sleeve. I use the "rule of thumb": if my thumb fits between the bolt-sleeve and the bolt-head, it's safe.

I have purposely assembled two 1905 Model (Mark II) Rosses incorrectly. On the one rifle, the bolt would go into the receiver, but it would NOT reciprocate. Just rock-solid. The other bolt would not even go into the receiver.

In the Great War, only ONE battalion of Canadian troops went overseas with the Ross Mark II. I believe they were used at Second Ypres/St. Julien in the gas attack. Everybody else had the Mark III (1910).

The tales of the rotten Mark III are utterly, totally, blatantly exaggerated, according to a number of Great War veterans who I knew personally, men I purposely asked about their rifles. I did not find even ONE man who had anything terrible to say about the Ross. ALL praised its accuracy. The closest I could find to a complaint was a quiet evaluation from a man who worked before the War as a cowboy, then as a Guide for the NWMP, then worked his way up from Private to Captain. This was Mr. George Dibblee, who won a DCM at Regina Trench for taking and holding a stretch of trench for 14 hours with 20 men.... after all the officers were dead or wounded. He should have got a VC, but for an OR to get a VC requires recommendations from 2 officers.... and there were none. He said, "The Ross Rifle was unpopular because of its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung." Speaking of 5 B'n, Canadian Mounted Rifles, he said, "We had NO trouble with our rifles. But then, we kept our equipment clean."

Further on the Ross, I interviewed two men who used it during the gas attack at St. Julien (23 April, 1915). L/Cpl. Robert Courtice (A Coy, which was the relief company that ran up through the gas) told me that he changed rifles during the German attack because the rifle he was using got so hot that he could no longer hold it. He changed for another Ross and fired that one until it was too hot to hold, then went back to his original rifle.
Private Alex McBain, who was with Courtice that day and was wounded in the battle, also reported changing rifles, for the same reason. A very quiet man. he began shouting and swearing when I suggested that there might have been troubles with the rifles. He was, one might say, rather vehement on the topic.

Further on this subject, I made the error of bringing up the topic of Rosses when I achieved a lifetime ambition (I live 1400 miles away) and actually met Ellwood Epps. I mentioned the Ross to Ellwood and he began shouting, "It's all a lie! There's NOTHING wrong with a G*d-d*amned Ross Rifle! I've worked on hundreds of them!"

As far as I'm concerned, these opinions settled any and all questions for me.

I just enjoy the heck out of my Rosses and love to shoot them: low recoil, accurate as you possibly could ask for, and that WONDERFUL Ross roller-bearing trigger.
 
Respectfully, sir- are you in a position to provide any evidence at all to back up your statement (para.4) about only one Batt'n taking any of the "short" variants of the Ross MkII (or, for that matter, MkII**'s as well) across the English Channel? We are all aware that only the 1st.Div. took MkII's to England in late 1914, but by all accounts I could ever find, they were all left behind in England and replaced with new MkIII's before crossing the Channel.....any first-hand written reports or better yet, photographs will bring immediate abject apologies from me....
 
Very interesting post Smellie! Thanks for it!

Nothing like getting it right from the horse's mouths so to speak.


As far as the bolt misassembly is concerned, I have done this on several UNpinned Mark IIIs. On a commercial sporting Ross of Mark III pattern (Model 1910) it is quite easy to do this. Fortunately, it is also easy to reverse and it canNOT get out of alignment by itself. As Tiriaq has pointed out, it REQUIRES manipulation to get it out of whack.

The bolt head on a Mark III (1910) can only sit in 2 positions when the rifle action is partway open: about an inch ahead of the bolt sleeve, and very close to the sleeve. I use the "rule of thumb": if my thumb fits between the bolt-sleeve and the bolt-head, it's safe.

I have purposely assembled two 1905 Model (Mark II) Rosses incorrectly. On the one rifle, the bolt would go into the receiver, but it would NOT reciprocate. Just rock-solid. The other bolt would not even go into the receiver.

In the Great War, only ONE battalion of Canadian troops went overseas with the Ross Mark II. I believe they were used at Second Ypres/St. Julien in the gas attack. Everybody else had the Mark III (1910).

The tales of the rotten Mark III are utterly, totally, blatantly exaggerated, according to a number of Great War veterans who I knew personally, men I purposely asked about their rifles. I did not find even ONE man who had anything terrible to say about the Ross. ALL praised its accuracy. The closest I could find to a complaint was a quiet evaluation from a man who worked before the War as a cowboy, then as a Guide for the NWMP, then worked his way up from Private to Captain. This was Mr. George Dibblee, who won a DCM at Regina Trench for taking and holding a stretch of trench for 14 hours with 20 men.... after all the officers were dead or wounded. He should have got a VC, but for an OR to get a VC requires recommendations from 2 officers.... and there were none. He said, "The Ross Rifle was unpopular because of its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung." Speaking of 5 B'n, Canadian Mounted Rifles, he said, "We had NO trouble with our rifles. But then, we kept our equipment clean."

Further on the Ross, I interviewed two men who used it during the gas attack at St. Julien (23 April, 1915). L/Cpl. Robert Courtice (A Coy, which was the relief company that ran up through the gas) told me that he changed rifles during the German attack because the rifle he was using got so hot that he could no longer hold it. He changed for another Ross and fired that one until it was too hot to hold, then went back to his original rifle.
Private Alex McBain, who was with Courtice that day and was wounded in the battle, also reported changing rifles, for the same reason. A very quiet man. he began shouting and swearing when I suggested that there might have been troubles with the rifles. He was, one might say, rather vehement on the topic.

Further on this subject, I made the error of bringing up the topic of Rosses when I achieved a lifetime ambition (I live 1400 miles away) and actually met Ellwood Epps. I mentioned the Ross to Ellwood and he began shouting, "It's all a lie! There's NOTHING wrong with a G*d-d*amned Ross Rifle! I've worked on hundreds of them!"

As far as I'm concerned, these opinions settled any and all questions for me.

I just enjoy the heck out of my Rosses and love to shoot them: low recoil, accurate as you possibly could ask for, and that WONDERFUL Ross roller-bearing trigger.
 
There where 85 modifications made to the Ross, not including sight mods. It cost more to produce, weighted more, and the boyonet kept falling off.
 
The Ross is a fascinating piece of engineering and a dandy rifle on the range. I've owned and shot a MkIII extensively and really enjoyed the experience. My father trained on the Ross early in WW2, when the Enfields were not sufficiently available, and was always very enthusiastic about it's accuracy.
The Ross had a very chequered history as the Canadian service rifle in WW1 and the bottom line was that it was quickly replaced in the trenches for a variety of reasons, some of which are still highly debatable. At the end of the day the troops had lost faith in it and considered it a "judas stick". After that nothing else really mattered.
Handling a rifle in the gun room or on the range is one thing. Using it under field conditions is another. And the trenches of WW1 created the most demanding testing ground of all. After looking at the multiple locking lugs and the deep breech of the Ross I've often thought about it fouling in the mud and dirt and how the troops would be able to clear it and keep it going in action. Once the crud gets in it gets held in until the weapon is stripped and the fouling cleaned out-tough thing to do in the heat of the moment.
After the Ross was withdrawn from general service it remained in use as a sniping rifle where it's accuracy was second to none and the sniper had a better opportunity than "snuffy" in the line to keep it clean and in good working order. I once knew a WW1 vet who had been a sniper with the Ross and had nothing but praise for it in that role.
There are some objective references on the Ross and it's history which are worth a read. "The Ross Rifle Story" is one which was written by a big enthusiast of the Ross. This book offers a good technical explanation of the relationship of the bolt lugs and bolt stop on the MkIII and how this contributed to bolt binding, jamming, and,in some cases, breakage. There is also a 32 page booklet,"Sir Charles Ross and his rifle" which is a good primer. Google "Ross Rifle" for more.
 
Always keep in mind that Sir Charles built the Military Rifle that he was told to build by a Government Committee........don't hear a lot of #####ing about his fine Commercial products, which was something that he had absolute control over.
 
The truth of the tale, if ever it comes out, is simple: it was a POLITICAL story all the way.

Hughes backed the Ross all the way. He was also sweet slow death on graft. WWI was the biggest pile of money EVER assembled in one place and Hughes would NOT tolerate graft.

As tp the McAdam Shield, it should be noted that the Austro-Hungarian Army had a very similar device.... and they were one of the most technically-advanced armies in the world.

Hughes staked his reputation and his career on the Ross.

Borden wanted rid of Hughes.

The solution was simple: get rid of the Ross and Hughes will go away, all by himself.

And that is exactly what happened.

There is a LOT of money to be made from a war, if you do it right. Witness the troops sitting in camps in Wales for almost a year after the war was over, waiting for transport home. It was all busy, shipping wheat to Europe at $5 a bushel. Farmers today don't get that much.
 
Fascinating...had never heard of this before.




MacAdam Shield Shovel


Sir Samuel Hughes holding a McAdam Shield Shovel.The MacAdam Shield-Shovel, also known as the Hughes Shovel, was an item of Canadian infantry equipment designed at the beginning of the First World War. It was conceived and patented by Sam Hughes, the Canadian minister for the Department of Militia and Defence in 1913, for use as an instrument which held the combined function to operate as a spade and a shield from which soldiers could securely fire from at enemy positions and advantageously not be targeted in return.[1] However, the implement was first suggested by Ena MacAdam, Hughes' personal secretary, after she witnessed Swiss soldiers constructing frontline fortifications in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacAdam_Shield_Shovel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sam_Hughes_holding_the_McAdam_shovel.jpg
 
The Ross saga is now nearly 100 years old. Politics or not, the Ross Rifle lost the confidence of the troops as a fighting rifle in the trenches and was removed from service for this reason. If it was such a great piece of fighting kit where were the howls of protest from the troops when they had to turn them in? Great combat gear does not get pulled in the middle of a war on a whim after all the time and expense to develop, procure, field it and train thousands of men in it's use.
 
"Tell big lies. If you tell a small lie, someone might suspect and find you out. But if you tell a big ENOUGH lie, no-one will ever suspect." --- Paul Joseph Goebbels, PhD

The whole ugly Ross tale reminds me so much of the Arrow tale that it makes me want to cry. Really.

As to the single Batt taking the Mark II overseas, that was from G.W. Nicholson's "Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1919". He also discusses the Ross question somewhat, as much as space permitted.

TWO Dominions used the Ross: Canada and Newfoundland. Newfoundland's Rosses were sent directly to England, went into "storage" there and have not been heard of since. The Newfoundland Regiment then was issued SMLEs.

Australia can credit Ross with getting their own factory at Lithgow. British policy was that the "colonies" (that's us, by the way) would take whatever they were darned well given. This meant, also, that the colonies would be a generation behind Britain in military equipment. When Canada wanted SMLEs, they were offered Martinis and LMs, both obsolescent in British usage. It was Canada's determination in adopting the Ross that showed the Mother Country that the colonials were serious.

Ross TRIED to build a more-wieldy rifle (26-inch barrel versus 30.25) but the Government stopped him.

He TRIED to sell them "Cleaning Sticks" for the multiple lug-recesses of the Mark III (5 cents each) but the Government refused to purchase them.

The Ross cost $28 in series production, not a terrible amount. The P-'14 cost $26, and you had to order a million to get the price break. Ross NEVER received a big contract; it was all dribs and drabs and we want them right now. Just TRY planning production on that kind of a basis.

Also, the Government would NOT declare the Ross factory to be essential, thereby freezing the staff. They had a huge staff changeover as men turned up for work, were trained on the job and went to the USA for higher wages at Winchester, remington, Eddystone. If your P-'14 or your US M-11917 shoots great, just remember that a LOT of the men who built it were trained by Ross..... at HIS expense.

A recipe for trouble?

Certainly.

It's a miracle the things worked at all, much less well enough that here we are, 100 years later, still arguing over it.
 
YES DID THE EARLIER 1905 HAVE OR SUFFER FROM THE points below .....?


Which problems?
Jamming in mud?
Bolt that could be misassembled on some rifles?
Minimum chamber specs?
Less than handy, particularly when bayonet was fixed?
Incorrect steel used in some bolts?
Bolts ruined by ill-advised attempts to recaseharden?

Keep in mind that the 1905 service rifle, the Mk. II, was never fully developed. It went through dozens of modifications.

The problems which affected the Mk. III service rifle didn't really apply to factory sporting rifles - with the exception of the Darwin situation with the 1910 bolt.
 
When a Mk. II feeds, the round has to rise further. This is because the bolt runs with the lugs vertical. Feed problems could sometimes result. Inherent in the design.
Mk. II rifles had the min. spec. chamber. No problem with quality ammunition. The Mk. II rifles used for training in the UK had their chambers reamed out oversized just like the Mk. IIIs.
You cannot misassemble a Mk. II bolt, AFAIK.
Mk. II rifles were all made in peacetime, so escaped the problems that occurred with wartime pressure on production that occurred with Mk. III rifles. Wrong alloy in boltheads, etc.
Mk. II stocks, with the Harris magazine, particularly the II***, were weaker than Mk. III stocks.
I doubt that the IIs would have been any better in mud than the IIIs.

The Mk.II rifles - except for the II** - were lighter and a bit shorter than the IIIs.
 
.....

Now, I've been told there is an issue with the early rifles. The bores were smaller on some earlier rifles. Tighter bores. The ammo at the time was Mk VI .303, not the later higher powered Mk VII. I understand the rifles weren't proofed with Mk VII ammunition.

Having read the book the Ross Story this actually is the main issue for problems with the Ross during WWI. There were political and mechanical issues but the rifle was designed specifically for Canadian manufactured .303 ammo, and did not function well with British and other as supplied on the front causing the jams etc. I found this interesting as one always hears of the mechanical side, but it was as simple as the ammo that the cause of the main issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom