Memoirs describing the Ross rifle’s failure in combat

The British had 3 guages for production ammo guage1 for aircraft machine gun ammo , guage 2 ground machine gun ammo, guage 3 for Lee Enfield rifles , guage 3 was. Not good for the Ross
 
The ammunition issue is the red herring excuse used as propaganda by Sam Hughes & Co.

Read the monograph published by Clive Law it is from the official postwar enquiry and testimony of the involved parties:

https://servicepub.com/product/a-qu...onel-a-fortescue-duguid-service-publications/

The first issue is that in order to produce the highest possible velocity with service ammunition, the Ross .303 chamber was ordered to be the smallest possible - basically they took the minor dimension, and used them as the major dimension - try that with .308 Winchester and see what happens.

The second issue is that segmented bolt of Ross Mk III had MAJOR heat treatment problems.
The Army then made things worse by establishing a program to re heat-treat bolts while waiting for new ones (hopefully properly heat treated) to be shipped from Canada.

They gauge temperature by colour; however, ambient light and in-experienced workers are not a recipe for success.

In my collection I have bolt heads which show ALL of the lugs (on the left side) broken out in decreasing amounts towards the front.

The third issue is the design flaws: the small bolt stop (only bearing on the segment, not the main body of the lug).
There is also inadequate support for the bolt as it is retracted, it flops around, and I have seen at least one jammed from that.
 
ted_dent said:
When I had a Ross rifle a friend of mine loaned me a book titled "The Ross Rifle Story" 1984 by by Roger F. Phillips, Francis Dupuis and John Chadwick. It was quite interesting and listed instances of failures including when soldiers had to pound on the bolt handle with their bayonet to get the bolt open.

Unfortunately I think it's out of print and the prices for used ones run into the hundreds of dollars.
Click to expand...
Have a copy of that, got me interested enough in Ross rifles to buy a few to try out. Down to one now, a sporter in 280 Ross. Doesn't get shot much these days. - dan
 
Dosing said:
funny they are the only two rifles i can think of off the top of my head that had such crap reputations due to ammunition.
Click to expand...
Most countries tend to make sure to issue firearms with ammo that will work with them. I imagine most isolated instances where ammo wasn’t working they tended to figure out.

Another example off the top of my head is the Gewehr 88 where early ammo issues combined with a few design flaws required some rework on the whole design (gas vent cocking piece, bore depth changed, chamber strengthened). It also lead to them adopting the Gewehr 98 instead due to confidence being lost.
 
From my understanding the Ross was meant to be a "marksman" rifle more than a standard infantry rifle. Sir Ross wanted the Canadian Military to be an "elite" force where each man would fire one or two rounds and score hits compared to hundreds the British would fire with their Lee Enfields to maybe score one hit. Thus why the tolerances of the Ross were so tight. Canada couldn't keep up with ammo production and British made crap ammo along with mud doesn't make good bedfellows with a rifle like that.
 
Early springfields have a similar problem heat treating at the factory. Overheated receivers were too brittle. Wasn’t a Ross specific problem. More of a quality control issue rather than a design isse.
Lee Enfield said:
The second issue is that segmented bolt of Ross Mk III had MAJOR heat treatment problems.
The Army then made things worse by establishing a program to re heat-treat bolts while waiting for new ones (hopefully properly heat treated) to be shipped from Canada.

They gauge temperature by colour; however, ambient light and in-experienced workers are not a recipe for success.
Click to expand...
 
ArmedGinger said:
From my understanding the Ross was meant to be a "marksman" rifle more than a standard infantry rifle. Sir Ross wanted the Canadian Military to be an "elite" force where each man would fire one or two rounds and score hits compared to hundreds the British would fire with their Lee Enfields to maybe score one hit. Thus why the tolerances of the Ross were so tight. Canada couldn't keep up with ammo production and British made crap ammo along with mud doesn't make good bedfellows with a rifle like that.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t help when your high quality ammo is being sent to the machine guns and lower quality ammo being substituted instead.
 
flying pig said:
Does anyone know of any memoirs describing first hand the Ross’ failures as a combat rifle?

Obviously, when your rifle fails mid battle it reduces your chances of survival significantly, but surely some of these men would have been taken prisoner or otherwise survived and later written about the experience?
Click to expand...

The history channel produced an episode on this very issue about 20 years ago. Definitely lots of miserable first hand accounts
 
B_noser said:
I have read the same thing multiple times and from different sources, although they all may hve been secondary sources. The reason for the factory "LC" modification and the "EC" field modification. Might have those two acronyms reversed, but believe they are correct.
Click to expand...
Hi BN. The LC stamped on top of the breach stands for Large Chamber (to SMLE standards of .464). The stamp was applied after the chamber was reamed. The modification was done in the U.K. Ross factory stamped an E on top of the chamber which stands for "enlarged" pattern. On some of the Ross short rifles that found their way to England with the CEF they
were stamped SC for small chamber and generally were not used for range practise. John
 
The Ross Rifle Story - Roger Francis Phillips, Francois J. Dupuis, John A. Chadwick · 2002


A Question of Confidence: The Ross Rifle in the Trenches - Archer Fortescue Duguid · 2000


Sir Charles Ross and His Rifle - Roger F. (Roger Francis) Phillips, Jerome J. Knap, Museum Restoration Service · 1994
 
Lack or primary extracting power ( a problem with all straight-pulls). And a service rifle should be capable of functioning with a wide variety of ammunition made in a hurry by people who have never done it before.
 
98ssuck said:
Early springfields have a similar problem heat treating at the factory. Overheated receivers were too brittle. Wasn’t a Ross specific problem. More of a quality control issue rather than a design isse.
Click to expand...
1917 Enfields out of the Eddystone plant had simular issues. Heat treating done by sight rather than measurement. - dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom