M 10 Ross question

jakester said:
The early #1 MkIII enfield's had their fair share of problems in the trenches with jamming due to dirt and out of spec/poorly manufactured ammo, just as did as the Ross MkIII.

That fact appears to be have been "glossed" over by history!

The problem enfield's were quietly sent to the rear areas for chamber mods, while the Ross was hung out out to dry publicly. Lot's of politics going on at that time, and the Brit's definitely had their undies in a bunch with Canada not adopting the rifle of Mother England straight away. By 1916 the bugs were worked out with various updates, and the Ross became quite reliable. Much like the M-16, it was perhaps put into service a bit too soon.
Click to expand...

From what I have read the British flat out refused to allow Canada to manufacture the Lee Enfield in Canada before WW1 was even thought of so they selected what they thought was a fine design in the Ross. The Ross was a good rifle but for a number of reasons not suited main battle rifle. It made its name on the target ranges where it outshot all the British made rifles.
 
Mike Webb said:
From what I have read the British flat out refused to allow Canada to manufacture the Lee Enfield in Canada before WW1 was even thought of so they selected what they thought was a fine design in the Ross. The Ross was a good rifle but for a number of reasons not suited main battle rifle. It made its name on the target ranges where it outshot all the British made rifles.
Click to expand...

I just awoke from Graveyards...reading this great post. IIRC the Russians used it at Olympic shooting events to great success?
Still getting the 1st coffee down...so a tad fuzzy. Feel like a cold diesel at the moment.
We supplied the Russians with some Ross's at one point. Their enhanced accuracy was well put to use in the FSU in the international shooting competition's .
 
tokguy said:
I just awoke from Graveyards...reading this great post. IIRC the Russians used it at Olympic shooting events to great success?
Still getting the 1st coffee down...so a tad fuzzy. Feel like a cold diesel at the moment.
We supplied the Russians with some Ross's at one point. Their enhanced accuracy was well put to use in the FSU in the international shooting competition's .
Click to expand...

If you call supplying the Baltic states with Rosses and then having the Russians capture them from their warehouses and putting them to use, then yeah, we supplied the Russians :) They were used during the siege of Leningrad by militia units and after the war some were used in competitions.

Also, if I recall, the Rosses the Latvians received came from the UK, so they weren't even supplied by Canada directly, but rather were the second line stuff sitting in warehouses and used to arm some cannon fodder against the Russians.
 
Mike Webb said:
From what I have read the British flat out refused to allow Canada to manufacture the Lee Enfield in Canada before WW1 was even thought of so they selected what they thought was a fine design in the Ross. The Ross was a good rifle but for a number of reasons not suited main battle rifle. It made its name on the target ranges where it outshot all the British made rifles.
Click to expand...

The origin of the Ross was in the wake of the Boer War Canada wanted to manufacture Lee Enfields so as to not have to rely on the British. Britain refused to allow them to set up a factory (unlike Australia or India). So Sir Charles Ross showed up and offered to manufacture them his rifle design and build a factory to do it. Of course they said yes. Later on the Brits tried to get us to switch, particularly after stomping them in rifle competition. However we had our design.

Honestly it wasn't a terrible rifle for being a main battle rifle, there was a few bugs which they did fix. The biggest problem was ammo which isn't the rifles fault, if you give someone out of spec ammo most guns aren't going to work. Look at the M16 in Vietnam where the issues with those rifles was 100% ammo related. Now it is the standard by which most modern firearms are based.

I would argue there was a concerted effort to have the Ross fail by the British as mentioned above Lee Enfields suffered from similar issues when given poor quality ammo, however they didn't make the news the same way.

Another thing to consider is the Lee Enfield had about 20 years and a few wars to develop by time they reached the Mk III pattern. They had some serious teething issues in the earlier designs (such as the Long Lees sights being way off in the Boer War). Ross had about 11 years before WWI and no minor conflicts to try it out beforehand. Completely fixed up and sorted out the rifle in 2 years, but by then it was too late.
 
IIRC Sam Hughes was a name involved in the Ross rifle 'Goat Roping'.
I'm struggling to recall exactly...but Sam was a disreputable sort of a fellow. But Sam Hughes championed the Ross Rifle, and if anything could be used to Blaggard Hughes.. it was used.
Pretty cool article by the Canadian Terry Wieland IIRC.
Undoubtedly we read posts by him every so often on here...just a logical guess.
I'll see if the magazine is still kicking around...great article.
April 2014
WfyPSwel.jpg

Yeah, I know...the pictures suck...not my forte
blDZ7eVl.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom