I have Canadian ammunition from all dated years of the Ross period, right through to the end of the Great War. That includes Dominion Arsenal (the Government plant), the Lindsay Arsenal (1917-19 only) and Dominion Cartridge Company (DCCO on the head). I also have ammo from most of the British makers of the period, often in fair numbers.
Canadian ammunition was NOT made smaller than British ammunition. But it WAS made to the LOWER LIMIT OF TOLERANCE whenever possible, which seems to be most of the time. There is very little difference.
What seems to have happened is that the Rosses ran into some oversize ammunition, possibly British, from a maker which was new to the business, and this is what caused the problems. The tale (for which I would love some backup in the form of documentation) goes that the British were already having trouble with this ammo in the Vickers guns, so fobbed it off onto the "colonials" (our grandfathers and great-grandfathers) and used the DA ammo for the MGs.
No matter if the tale is true or not, there had to be oversize ammo involved somewhere along the line. A Ross used with ammunition meeting the established tolerances will give no more trouble than any other rifle, and a lot less than some.
As to the Mark II Ross, I have misassembled bolts on 2 of them, but the rifle WILL NOT function in this manner. The first tendency is for the bolt simply to refuse to go into the rifle. IF you manage to get the bolt into a well-worn rifle, it will not move backward and forward: it is as solid as a rock. Removing it so you can put it right can be quite the chore!
There WERE early Rosses with very tight bores. I notice that no-one seems to think this a problem in a Number 4 Rifle..... so why is it a life-threatening problem in a Ross..... which has a far stronger and stiffer action?
Ross used the established BRITISH dimensions for chambering reamers BUT (1) there was a definite tendency to ream the chambers to the minimum tolerance, and (2) owing to the tremendous strength of the Ross action, the Ross chambers did not enlarge as much as a Lee-Enfield chamber on Proof.
Bad ammunition was a problem all the way through the War. Witness the fact that Lee-Enfield chambers, already reamed fairly big, were reamed to a larger size after the middle of 1916. This was because of the ammunition problems.... but I note that nobody craps on the Lee because poor ammo was being issued for it.
I think that Tiriaq's evaluation likely is quite correct.
Canadian ammunition was NOT made smaller than British ammunition. But it WAS made to the LOWER LIMIT OF TOLERANCE whenever possible, which seems to be most of the time. There is very little difference.
What seems to have happened is that the Rosses ran into some oversize ammunition, possibly British, from a maker which was new to the business, and this is what caused the problems. The tale (for which I would love some backup in the form of documentation) goes that the British were already having trouble with this ammo in the Vickers guns, so fobbed it off onto the "colonials" (our grandfathers and great-grandfathers) and used the DA ammo for the MGs.
No matter if the tale is true or not, there had to be oversize ammo involved somewhere along the line. A Ross used with ammunition meeting the established tolerances will give no more trouble than any other rifle, and a lot less than some.
As to the Mark II Ross, I have misassembled bolts on 2 of them, but the rifle WILL NOT function in this manner. The first tendency is for the bolt simply to refuse to go into the rifle. IF you manage to get the bolt into a well-worn rifle, it will not move backward and forward: it is as solid as a rock. Removing it so you can put it right can be quite the chore!
There WERE early Rosses with very tight bores. I notice that no-one seems to think this a problem in a Number 4 Rifle..... so why is it a life-threatening problem in a Ross..... which has a far stronger and stiffer action?
Ross used the established BRITISH dimensions for chambering reamers BUT (1) there was a definite tendency to ream the chambers to the minimum tolerance, and (2) owing to the tremendous strength of the Ross action, the Ross chambers did not enlarge as much as a Lee-Enfield chamber on Proof.
Bad ammunition was a problem all the way through the War. Witness the fact that Lee-Enfield chambers, already reamed fairly big, were reamed to a larger size after the middle of 1916. This was because of the ammunition problems.... but I note that nobody craps on the Lee because poor ammo was being issued for it.
I think that Tiriaq's evaluation likely is quite correct.
