re: Ross M-10 .303 rifle

That was the REAL reason. That 74-point score at 1100 yards still has not been broken and it has only been equalled a couple of times. That's one indication.

The PAPER reason was that it was not a standard military rifle.

The FACT is that the Ross in several models, INCLUDING the ones used in the big international shoots, was adopted by Canada as military equipment. This even included the utterly superb Military Match .280, which had been adopted for special uses..... including long-range targets.

Sir Charles was trying to get the whole British Empire to adopt the .280 Ross cartridge as its standard. Canada adopted it partially but it was anathema to the British. Can't have a mere COLONIAL development showing up the Mother Country, wot?

What the whole Ross Rifle saga showed Britain was that the Colonies were growing up. When Australia wanted to build their own rifle factory, Britain, very mindful of Canada, was more than happy to help out.

Very quietly, the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich began development n a steamy new 7mm cartridge which owed a LOT to Ross. This was the round for the P-13. Then Enfield set to work to develop a rifle HEAVY enough to handle it; that was the P-13...... which gave us the P-14 and the M-1917. The big high-pressure round is the reason that a Mauser had to be beefed-up that much. The Ross action, actually quite lightweight in most areas, handled the much MORE powerful .280 with ease. Work it out: how many 7mm rifles today can handle a 180-grain bullet at 3000 ft/sec? Answer: none really; only the Weatherby comes close.

It also showed that you should test your rifles THOROUGHLY before taking them into battle; that was the one BIG advantage which the Lee rifle (also a Canadian development) enjoyed: Britain had been working on it since 1879.

Unfortunately, the Ross also proved that you cannot feed a fine rifle with absolute garbage ammunition, stuff so grossly oversized that no other rifle will handle it, and expect the fine rifle to operate perfectly when it is ALSO full of mud.

But the rifles survive today and all of them still in decent condition, nearly all .303s. remain wonderfully accurate. I can remember a time when I was actually kept out of a rifle match because I wanted to use my Ross, even though my rifle was iron sights and some of the competitors were using scopes. The old guys said that the Ross was "unfair" because it was "too accurate"..... and the young guys were afraid it would blow up. Barnett Rifle Club, Coquitlam, 1965.

It is sure nice to see the tables turning at last!

See you on the range!
.
 
No. The complaint was that the competition Rosses were not true military service rifles, as routinely issued to Cdn. soldiers.
In the match rifle category, one winning long range Ross was inspected, and found that the weight of the barrel exceeded the maximum weight allowed.
 
The rifle that F.W. Jones shot in the 1908 shoots was inadvertantly built with a barrel a small bit too heavy, although the rifle as a whole weighed a pound less than the ones it was shooting against. Jones won everything he shot for and then, when the rifle was stripped down completely by the Match committee and the barrel weighed, Jones voluntarily returned all of the trophies. The ammunition being shot was the .280 Ross cartridge, producing 2700 ft/sec with a 180-grain bullet: hot-hot-hot!

In the 1909 and 1910 matches, the Ross failed to perform. The cause here was the Eley ammunition, which suddenly developed rather a lot of dispersion even though it had worked wonderfully in 1907 and 1908.

It should be noted that the first time the .280 was even tried at Bisley, in 1907, it was not in competition but merely in a private test. In that series of tests, the Ross, using Eley ammunition, unofficially broke just about every record in the book. Jones, the shooter, was a consultant for Eley as well as for Ross.

The sudden failure of the Eley ammunition was what started Ross into making his own ammunition.

For the 1911 and 1912 seasons, the Ross was spiffed up, new bayonet bars designed for the long match rifles so that they could handle the standard bayonet, the long-range rifles had been standardised and all that. The range performance was utterly fantastic, setting records which have never been matched.

But here is a point: the .280 gets all the glory but the fact is that Ross Rifles in .303 calibre were on the rifle ranges, right across the country, coast to coast, and they were turning in scores which are hard to beat today. And the .303 also was shot at Bisley and it turned a LOT of heads there.

And another point: the barrels used on all those Ross target rifles were nothing special; they came right off the regular production machinery. The RIFLING was not Enfield, but rather a special Ross form which was designed to last and last, even with the viciously-erosive Cordite ammunition of the time. The actions were nothing special, either; they were all that good. And there was no .280 ACTION and no .303 ACTION: they were all just ACTIONS, picked off the Line and completed into rifles as required. Serial numbers of commercial rifles were in a special series of their own but the plant was building commercial rifles and military rifles out of the same parts bins, at the same time. The commercial Rosses still inspire awe today, a century after many of them were built, but the fact is that the plain, ordinary military-issue rifles were JUST as good. That alone is almost mind-boggling.

Ross, and Canada, were onto Something Very Good. It was TOO good, in fact, to be allowed to interfere with the British arms industry, then one of the mainstays of their industrial economy. This was an issue of national survival for Britain because their population had increased beyond the point at which they could produce their own food. Britain NEEDED international trade just in order to eat.

Like the Arrow half a century later, the Ross had to go. It was TOO GOOD to compete against, so it had to be destroyed by fair means or foul. And so it went.

And we, a century after the Glory Days, are become the Keepers of our own once-brilliant Flame. May it blaze again!
.

The answer is "yes": I DO like Ross Rifles!

I just can't afford them all.
.
 
My II**, (I would guess 1912) target rifle still shows the soot and scraping from when the bedding was finished. Never had a sight on the barrel, BSA Martin rear sight.

Final inletting is much more neatly done than my 1914 HG Mk. III.
 
Which model of the Ross had the elevation on the rear sight adjusted by a rotating ring on the barrel? When I bought two of the rifles, I ran out of money for the third one with that feature
 
REALLY early Model of 1905, John. (Mark II)

I have most of one here, bought it for the sight at a gun show.
It ALSO has the threaded cocking-piece and firing-pin.
It is dated 1906 on the stock.

Hope this helps.
 
I have a MkII no-star. I think that is the one you are talking about. Sure is a weird looking rear sight with all kinds of fine adjustment for bothe elevation and windage. I picked it up from a gun shop in Sask. Someone here told me about it and I ordered it over the phone. Didn't know what I had until it arrived and I looked it up in the book. Stock has been patched under the Harris lever. It is marked 908 over 1905, 8th MR over 45 on the butt.
 
here are your sights, john.
jan.

rosspair.jpg
[/IMG]

Range trip coming up....

earlyrossmk21.jpg
[/IMG]

earlyrossbutt.jpg
[/IMG]
 
tiriaq said:
My II**, (I would guess 1912) target rifle still shows the soot and scraping from when the bedding was finished. Never had a sight on the barrel, BSA Martin rear sight.
Click to expand...

tiriaq
I`am curious to the serial # of your MkII**. I have one same as yours, dates about 1909 by the info that came with the rifle.

PM, if you like.
 
@ bushwhacker:

12th Mounted Rifles was formed up on 15 March 1915 under the South Alberta Light Horse and continued as a Regiment to February 3, 1916. They went overseas as their own formation and were taken by the Canadian Cavalry Depot and broken up for replacements for 1st Battalion Canadian Mounted Rifles and 2nd Battalion Canadian Mounted Rifles. They saw a LOT of very ugly action.

The Regiment was perpetuated originally by the 15th Canadian Light Horse and on the Army List f today as the South Alberta Light Horse.

This rifle would have been used during their training in Canada. They would have gone overseas with spanking-new Ross Mark IIIs.

Hope this helps.

LOVELY old piece of our history!
.
 
Got my sporterized (cry) M10 Mk II .303 today - I think I am lucky as I found out it has the TINY front sight bead !!

I have a rear sight and a rear action screw in the mail - can't WAIT to get it out to the long range and try it at 100 - 200 - 300 - 400 and .... yes 500 meters ----> to START !
w:h:
w:h:
w:h:
w:h:
w:h:
 
Have a Mark II*, marked M&D, 483A. The sight looks more like a damned pellet gun, with an elevated slat in the rear with bullhorns and a bead in the front...how do I get my hands on a MkIII sight, and would it fit straight across?
 
johann_seb said:
Have a Mark II*, marked M&D, 483A. The sight looks more like a damned pellet gun, with an elevated slat in the rear with bullhorns and a bead in the front...how do I get my hands on a MkIII sight, and would it fit straight across?
Click to expand...

Got any pics of your rifle including the sight?

That's a rare old bird...wouldn't recommend swapping parts around. If your rifle is original it is worth more in it's original shape. Start swapping things around and watch it's value drop to 1/10th.
 
See,and she's a shooter, too. I spent a week cleaning her up, and fired a box through her. I grouped well, but mostly its working those iron sights. I want her to take a deer this year. Bubba attacked the forestock as he does, and its tapped and drilled on lhs. Maybe I'll just find a rail; this way I get to stretch her legs without doing any further damage. The holes are about 1-1/2" apart on the side of the ejector, and an abortive effort on RHS.
 
Great, now I'm wanting to refresh my mildly bubba'd M-10, and do some shooting.
Havn't even finished fitting the new stock on the Krag-Jorgenson yet.
Too many Bubba'd rifles and not enough time. Back working in Sask now and a disassembled rifle on the desk at work merely prompts questions about type; AB that sorta thing precede's a visit with a safety hand & going home for good.
 
I am restoring a Mk III. I have the forend extension and handguard ordered, and a Mk II nosepiece waiting. Anyone have a Mk III nosepiece or a sight protector?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom