Yes...that's how I've done it. It's obvious when you look at the difference between gauge in and no gauge.
Ross experts - help needed, please
- Thread starter tacfoley
- Start date
Yes...that's how I've done it. It's obvious when you look at the difference between gauge in and no gauge.
I own a sporterized Ross and reload my own ammo. My full-length resizing die (Lee) will not permit any ammo I load to work in my Ross, but they function in my 3 Lee Enfields. I have to buy factory ammo, shoot in the Ross, then neck size that brass for reloading in the Ross. Maybe this reflects on my Lee dies, but I have heard other people using other dies having the same problem.
Ross rifles have a reputation for their tight Canadian-spec chambers. Consider yourself fortunate to have one which has not had the chamber enlarged. Try trimming a little off the top of your shell holder so the case will go a little deeper into the die. I have never had to do it, but understand it can alleviate the problem.
My II** target rifle will not accept a FL sized case previously fired in any Lee Enfield. The problem is the diameter toward the base.
I made a simple sizing die to reduce the diameter just above the rim to that of a new case. Problem solved.
I made a simple sizing die to reduce the diameter just above the rim to that of a new case. Problem solved.
Too right he was! I know I'm late to this thread, but I saw red when I read his comment about "the Austrians" having a straight-pull (the Steyr) that was so bad they had to re-equip completely with German rifles. Libelous bull####! And totally untrue. The Steyr was/is a beautifully-made, quality weapon, that was used through WWI and still in use in WWII, including chamberings in 8mm Mauser. It has also been the basis for numerous exquisite, high-end stalking rifles. Sounds like this Colonel Blimp had a typical disdain for "bloody foreigners".
Feed a Ross Mark III decent ammo and it will go halfway to forever.
I thought I had proved this to myself when a friend and I entered a 2-man Iron Sight match at CFB Shilo a number of years ago. We fired 75 rounds in 8 minutes and had a pair of very hot Rosses and NO problems.
Further, I once-upon-a-time knew two men in Brandon who had used the Ross in what was likely the single most horrific rifle engagement in history: the battle at St. Julien in April of 1915 when the gas came through. Both men were in A Company, 8th Battalion, which was reserve company on that day. When the gas came through and the French Colonial line broke, they ran up through the gas, wearing field dressings which had been thoroughly wetted with urine. Contact with Urea makes gaseous Chlorine condense on the surface of the improvised mask so, as long as they kept breathing through the improvised mask, they were relatively safe from the Chlorine which Doktor Haber and his boys were releasing. The crumbling of the French line was noted carefully and a DIVISION was attempted to be pushed through the gap; this is where A Company went with their Rosses.
Pte Alex McBain and L/Cpl Robert Courtice both told me that they fired their Rosses until the rifles were too hot even to reload; the danger of serious burns was too high. Each man then put his rifle down and, re-armed with another Ross from a Canadian casualty, continued fire. When that rifle was too hot to touch, they reverted to their first rifles, now somewhat cooled. Each man fired ALL his personal ammunition load-out PLUS a large quantity scavenged from casualties. Interestingly, the odds in this fight were in the order of 120-to-1 with the German forces on the thick end of that stick. The Canadians did NOT break, although they were forced slowly backward as the Line was straightened.
The German breakthrough which was to END the War on April 23, 1915, was stopped in its tracks. The 120 men of A Company, 8th Battalion, STOPPED the German advance..... and the War continued another 3-1/2 years.
Extensive research on the "jamming" problem with the Mark III Ross was conducted both at the time, and again following the War. The defective ammunition which SOME of the Canadians had been issued was traced to TWO separate lots, both made in England, and both lots which SHOULD have been condemned because it was too large even to fit an SMLE chamber. I have Canadian .303 rounds from all manufacturers for all years of the Great War and have measured it. Canadian ammunition was NOT made to a different dimension to the specification; it simply was made strictly TO the specs. The Canadian Official History published an Addendum to (iirc) Volume 38 on this problem; it has been reproduced in pamphlet form and is available at this time.
I interviewed more than a dozen men with extensive experience at the Front in that war and was unable to find a single one who had anything bad to say about the performance of the Ross. The closest I heard to criticism was the careful and considered evaluation of Capt. George Dibblee DCM, a personal friend, who stated that "The Ross Rifle was .... unpopular.... due to its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung." Asked if he had seen any incidents, he stated, "We had NO problems in our outfit with the Ross Rifle, but we kept our equipment CLEAN, unlike SOME outfits which never cleaned their equipment!"
I think that about sums it up, although I will mention that L/Cpl Courtice was emphatic regarding the rifle, Private McBain began cursing horribly and very nearly became violent when I asked about Ross problems..... and Ellwood Epps himself began screaming, "It's LIES, just LIES! There's nothing wrong with the God-damned Ross Rifle! I've worked on HUNDREDS of them!"
Point made, I think, in favour of the Ross.
I thought I had proved this to myself when a friend and I entered a 2-man Iron Sight match at CFB Shilo a number of years ago. We fired 75 rounds in 8 minutes and had a pair of very hot Rosses and NO problems.
Further, I once-upon-a-time knew two men in Brandon who had used the Ross in what was likely the single most horrific rifle engagement in history: the battle at St. Julien in April of 1915 when the gas came through. Both men were in A Company, 8th Battalion, which was reserve company on that day. When the gas came through and the French Colonial line broke, they ran up through the gas, wearing field dressings which had been thoroughly wetted with urine. Contact with Urea makes gaseous Chlorine condense on the surface of the improvised mask so, as long as they kept breathing through the improvised mask, they were relatively safe from the Chlorine which Doktor Haber and his boys were releasing. The crumbling of the French line was noted carefully and a DIVISION was attempted to be pushed through the gap; this is where A Company went with their Rosses.
Pte Alex McBain and L/Cpl Robert Courtice both told me that they fired their Rosses until the rifles were too hot even to reload; the danger of serious burns was too high. Each man then put his rifle down and, re-armed with another Ross from a Canadian casualty, continued fire. When that rifle was too hot to touch, they reverted to their first rifles, now somewhat cooled. Each man fired ALL his personal ammunition load-out PLUS a large quantity scavenged from casualties. Interestingly, the odds in this fight were in the order of 120-to-1 with the German forces on the thick end of that stick. The Canadians did NOT break, although they were forced slowly backward as the Line was straightened.
The German breakthrough which was to END the War on April 23, 1915, was stopped in its tracks. The 120 men of A Company, 8th Battalion, STOPPED the German advance..... and the War continued another 3-1/2 years.
Extensive research on the "jamming" problem with the Mark III Ross was conducted both at the time, and again following the War. The defective ammunition which SOME of the Canadians had been issued was traced to TWO separate lots, both made in England, and both lots which SHOULD have been condemned because it was too large even to fit an SMLE chamber. I have Canadian .303 rounds from all manufacturers for all years of the Great War and have measured it. Canadian ammunition was NOT made to a different dimension to the specification; it simply was made strictly TO the specs. The Canadian Official History published an Addendum to (iirc) Volume 38 on this problem; it has been reproduced in pamphlet form and is available at this time.
I interviewed more than a dozen men with extensive experience at the Front in that war and was unable to find a single one who had anything bad to say about the performance of the Ross. The closest I heard to criticism was the careful and considered evaluation of Capt. George Dibblee DCM, a personal friend, who stated that "The Ross Rifle was .... unpopular.... due to its length and weight. You couldn't get into a dugout with your rifle slung." Asked if he had seen any incidents, he stated, "We had NO problems in our outfit with the Ross Rifle, but we kept our equipment CLEAN, unlike SOME outfits which never cleaned their equipment!"
I think that about sums it up, although I will mention that L/Cpl Courtice was emphatic regarding the rifle, Private McBain began cursing horribly and very nearly became violent when I asked about Ross problems..... and Ellwood Epps himself began screaming, "It's LIES, just LIES! There's nothing wrong with the God-damned Ross Rifle! I've worked on HUNDREDS of them!"
Point made, I think, in favour of the Ross.
Last edited:
My wife and I visited St. Julien in 2018. Reason- her grandfather was one of the wounded in the gas attack. He survived the war but suffered for the rest of his life with severe respiratory problems.
Also visited Sanctuary Wood. Another battle where Canadians fought. There is a museum at Sanctuary Wood, privately run, with artifacts dug up from the property. Anyone recognize the bottom rifle in the display case?
